ERIC EJ843837: Service-Learning in Nonprofit Organizations: Motivations, Expectations, and Outcomes

2006·0.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 15
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Spring 2006,pp.15-26
Service-Learning in Nonprofit Organizations:
Motivations, Expectations, and Outcomes
Nancy Basingerand Keith Bartholomew
University of Utah
This article applies theories of giving from philanthropic studies to enhance understanding of service-
learning relationships between students and community partners. Focusing on the participation motiva-
tions,outcome expectations,and satisfaction levels of community partners who have recently completed
work with service-learning students,the authors find that organizations and staff supervisors engaged in
service-learning are motivated both by altruistic and self-serving factors. Staff supervisors and commu-
nity partner organizations are motivated to give time, training, and a laboratory to enhance student
learning. In return,community partners expect and generally receive valuable service from the students.
The results suggest that the service-learning relationship be viewed as reciprocal in nature,as with other
donor-recipient situations.
S
ervice-learning, a form of experiential learning fits are,they are still focused on students as the ser-
in whichclassroom instruction is reinforced by com- vice recipients, rather then the community partner
munity service (Hunter & Brisbin, 2000), is now a organizations. Eyler and Giles’ Where’s the
common and well accepted curricular component at Learning in Service-Learning? (1999) led us to
many universities (Eyler & Giles, 1999). The ser- wonder, quixotically, Where’s the service in ser-
vice-learning literature has clearly demonstrated the vice-learning? More to the point, to whom is the
benefits to students in two areas: their education is service being provided?
enhanced and they are more likely to be engaged cit- Admittedly,more attention has been paid in recent
izens throughout adulthood. The benefits accruing to years to the community partner’s perspective. Ferrari
students from service-learning include improving and Worrall (2000) offer a program evaluation from
critical thinking skills, integrating theory and prac- the perspective of staff at urban-based community
tice, improving communication skills, and creating partners,assessing student performance using quali-
sustained civic engagement (Battistoni, 1997; Gray, tative and quantitative items. The organization’s per-
Ondaatje, Fricker, & Geschwind, 2000; Hunter & ception of students,faculty,and community impacts
Brisbin,2000; Jacoby,1996). of the service-learning experience are also highlight-
Although service-learning literature is replete ed in other recent studies (Schmidt & Robby,2002;
with information on the learning benefits that Vernon & Ward,1999). While these studies help shed
accrue to service-learning students (e.g., Astin & light on the community partner perspective, more
Sax,1998; Eyler & Giles,1999; Kenny,2002),it is research is needed. Our personal experiences call
relatively bereft of information on the actual,rather into question the assumed direction and value of the
than implied, service benefits to the community service in service-learning,and suggest that the ser-
(Eyler,Giles,& Gray,1999; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, vice component is complex. Studies assessing the
1997). The overall impression given by the service- impact of service-learning must go further to under-
learning literatureis thatthe value of service to the stand the reciprocal nature of the “service” in ser-
community is more or less assumed. As long as the vice-learning.
program is well-designed, the value of the service It was not too long ago, that we, now assistant
is somehow assured. The definitions of the “ser- professors, were staff members of nonprofit orga-
vice” that occurs in service-learning relate most nizations and fielding proposals from professors
often to the creation of improved citizens, thus and students to establish some sort of experien-
accruing benefits both to the students and society tial/service-learning arrangement. Remarkably, we
(Kenny). Research demonstrates that those who both had similar experiences and reactions to those
contribute to society as college students will build overtures:to balance the time required to train and
social capital—they make more informed voters, supervise the student—which was certain—against
better parents,and more likely volunteers as adults the likelihood that the service provided by the stu-
(Eyler & Giles,1999). As important as these bene- dent would actually be useful—which was, in our
15
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 16
Basinger and Bartholomew
experience, not certain. In the end, our response serving) and altruistic (other-serving) factors.
would have more to do with our interest in assist- As community partner representatives choose
ing the student with their educational objectives or whether to participate in service-learning, they
loyalty to the educational institution than with the must consider what they will be required to give to
prospect of receiving free labor or useful service the relationship and balance this with what they
for the organization. Ultimately, our motivations and their organization will receive. They will give
leading to the decision to engage in a service-learn- of their time—meeting with students to provide
ing relationship had as much or more to do with our information and educate them about the organiza-
desire to give tothe student as to receive assistance tion. Staffers may also need to train the student,as
fromthe student. they would any volunteer,to perform specific func-
Our experiences gave us a hint that maybe ser- tions within the organization. Depending on the
vice is being provided to students by community task,this training may be financially costly,on top
partners as often as the other way around. As pro- of staff time. The community partner representative
fessors,we now regularly send students out into the must decide whether they are willing to give their
community to participate in service-learning. We, time,expertise,and organizational resources to the
thus,wanted to understand better whether the com- students. To that extent, the motivations of the
munity partners are getting, giving, or some of staffers,or the organizations themselves,are some-
both. One of the categories of service-learning what like those of individuals who donate time or
research (Ward &Wolf-Wendel, 2000) focuses on money to a charity. We, therefore, examine the
the student’s motivations to participate in commu- motivations and related expectations and satisfac-
nity service but no research asks the same ques- tion of community partners to participate in ser-
tions of the community partners. This study,there- vice-learning, relying on theories of giving devel-
fore, examines the motivations, expectations, and oped in researchon philanthropy.
satisfaction of community partners with their Scholars examining philanthropy study motiva-
tions of individuals to donate their time, talents,
recent service-learning experiences. In the end,our
and treasure to charitable organizations and find
observations indicate that decisions to participate
that motivations for donating time and expertise
in service-learning are motivated, like many other
mimic the motivations to give money (Ott, 2001).
donative decisions, by various influences, self-
Theories of giving suggest that cultural norms,
serving and self-giving. We also observe that the
emotions, and perceived self-interest all converge
respectivemotivations of individual staff members
to trigger acts of giving. Altruistic motivations arise
involved in service-learning and the organizations
from internalized abstract norms of justice and
thatemploythem aredistinct,though they overlap.
environmental factors such as culture and institu-
Finally,we observe a high degree of both pre-expe-
tions (Wolfe, 1998). An individual’s inclination to
rience expectations and post-experience satisfac-
giveis reinforced bysocial norms in their commu-
tion among service-learning community partners.
nity (Piliavin & Libby,1985/6). For many,a desire
Theories of Giving in Service-Learning to give derives from the pleasure received from
Relationships knowing one’s gifts will be used to support causes
in which one believes, or from the more general
“Giving theories inform us about an important satisfaction of providing resources to those in need
aspect of human behavior—donating voluntarily to or to someone with whom one empathizes (Batson
supportthe establishment,operations,and survival et al.,1991; Frank,1996).
of organizations and programs in the nonprofit sec- These various influences that lead individuals and
tor”(Ott,2001,p. 311). We believe that giving the- organizations to donate to others frequently commin-
ories can also inform the service-learning relation- gle the altruistic sense of duty to give with other more
ship—the exchange of service by students for self-serving motivations such as the accumulation of
knowledge and experience from community part- prestige,access to important social networks,and tax
ners. In other words, we think that the staff mem- deduction benefits (Ostrower,1995). That these vari-
bersatnonprofit organizations who agree to partic- ous effects—some more altruistic,some more egois-
ipate in service-learning programs are as motivated tic—are frequently intertwined does not mean that
byadesireto givevaluable learning experiences to one trumps the other. They,in fact,co-exist to form a
the student as much as the desire to receive some- multifaceted series of intentions on the part of the
thing of value from the student. Thus,the relation- giver (Frank,1996). “What emerges from the litera-
ship between community partners and service- ture in many forms is a sense that altruism and ego-
learning students is a reciprocal relationship moti- ism do not constitute mutuallyexclusivecategories”
vated by a complex combination of egoistic (self- (Wolfe,1998,p. 42). Donors may anticipate receiv-
16
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 17
Nonprofit Motivations,Expectations,and Outcomes
ing something of benefit to society,through the work ly motivated to assist students in furthering educa-
their donation finances, as well as receiving some- tional goals,give back to the educational system in
thing of benefit for themselves, such as recognition general, participate in a style of learning from
or member benefits. Ultimately, we are best able to which the staffer may have benefited when in col-
understand why people give time or money by con- lege, promote a general ideal of good citizenship
sidering many factors. People give when they are among students and the community at large, and
asked and when society expects them to give,when work toward the mission of the organization. They
the gift benefits the recipient and also is likely to have may also,however,have egoistic motivations relat-
areciprocal benefit for the donor,and when the cause ed to the satisfaction they anticipate feeling,based
they are supporting through their gift is personally on the perception that the students will benefit from
important because they are most likely to have an the service-learning experience.
emotional response to this sort of gift. In the giving decision, the involvement and pre-
To better capture both the egoistic and altruistic dominance components of the model suggest that
components of giving, we utilize Mount’s (1996) the emotional connection of the decision-maker to
Model of Personal Donorship, which suggests a the university, students, and service-learning will
gift can be explained through five factors:involve- all be important elements in the decision. The
ment, predominance, means, past behavior, and greater their affinity and desire to help (e.g.,social
self-interest. Although Mount uses her model to work students enrolled in a service-learning course
explain the largesse of a financial donation, we at their alma mater),the more likely they will make
believe that this model also helps explain the deci- an investment in that relationship.
sion on the part of community partners to donate
Means and Past Behavior
their own time and talent as well as their organiza-
tion’s treasure to a student in a service-learning This emotional connection will also be influ-
relationship. enced by considerations such as means and past
behavior. As Mount (1996) suggests, donors are
Involvement and Predominance
more likely to give, and tend to give a larger gift,
Involvement, according to Mount (1996), when theyhavethe financial means to makeasig-
“springs from expected satisfaction,” while pre- nificant difference to an organization. Similarly,we
dominance is,“the degree to which a cause stands suggest,acommunity partner who has the authori-
out in an individual’s personal hierarchy of philan- ty and expertise to create a meaningful service
thropic options”(p. 10). Involvement describes the experience for a student will be more motivated to
psychological and emotional satisfaction the staffer participate. Certainly the staff person must have the
receives from contributing,in this case to the edu- means, or authority, within the organization to
cation of a service-learning student. The donor makethe decision to takeon a service-learning stu-
feels personal satisfaction from the gift based on dent. More importantly, the “means” motivating
their level of emotional involvement with the per- participation in service-learning are also the time,
son or organization to which they are giving. They expertise, and experience that the staffer will be
are motivated to give based both on the altruistic donating to the student. A staff supervisor with a
desire to help and the egoistic satisfaction they get great deal of experience is more likely motivated to
from giving. share that knowledge with a student through a ser-
Predominance is based on how important a par- vice-learning relationship.
ticular cause is to the donor. As applied to service- In addition, an important part of understanding
learning, this suggests that the education of stu- who will give and how much they will give to a
dents carries weight within the personal hierarchy nonprofit is the donor’s past giving behavior. A
of interests to which the community partner staffer donor who believes in a certain cause and has given
feels an emotional connection. If predominance to an organization in the past is more likely to give,
exists because the staff supervisor cares about the and give more, to that organization in the future.
benefits that accrue to students from service-learn- Fund development professionals spend a great deal
ing,then the staff person is more likely to be will- of time cultivating relationships with individual
ing to make a sizable investment in the service- donors based on this trend of increasing donor loy-
learning relationship. alty over time (Dove, 2001; Rosso, 1996). We
Involvement and predominance are both com- believe that community partners who are interested
plex considerations in the service-learning relation- in giving to students through service-learning will
ship. As with other motivational components,these also increase their level of giving over time. We,
impulses include a mix of altruistic and egoistic therefore,expect that the past behavior and experi-
elements. Community partners may be altruistical- ences of community partners, both as service-
17
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 18
Basinger and Bartholomew
learning students themselves and as community organization, positive impressions will make them
partners, will influence future participation in ser- more likely to want to contribute to future students.
vice-learning. If the staff person has been involved This too combines egoistic and altruistic motiva-
as a community partner in service-learning in the tions. The community partner wants to give to the
past,they are better able to evaluate potential ben- student and will be more likely to do so when pre-
efits of the service-learning relationship for the stu- vious experiences have been positive.
dent and for the community partner organization
Self-Interest
and its constituents. Expectations and satisfaction
are part of the cyclical understanding of donor Self-interest-based motivations obviously
motivations and behavior (Mount,1996). The more include material benefits that the donor may
positive the staff supervisor’s expectation of posi- receive,such as thank you gifts and tax deductions,
tive outcomes and the higher their level of past sat- as well as emotionally-based elements, such as
isfaction,the more motivated they will be to agree feelings associated with the “joy of giving”
to donate. The motivations of the organizations and (Mount,1996). In the service-learning context,the
staff supervisors to participate in a particular ser- employees directly involved with service-learning
vice-learning relationship are impacted by the students may be seeking assistance with work tasks
expectations a staff person has regarding potential under their responsibility or with activities per-
outcomes,which are based in part on positive pre- ceived to promote the organization’s mission.
vious experiences. Whether these experiences Sometimes this will include the completion of
came when the supervisor was a student or through products or services that the staff supervisor or the
their current position with a community partner organization does not have the resources to pro-
Table 1
Areas of Examination,Objectives,and Sample Questions
Areas of Examination Objectives Sample Questions
Motivation for Why does the organization Involvement and predominance:
Participation participate? Understanding that your personal reasons for participating
in the service/researchproject might vary somewhat from
the organization’s reasons,please tell us in your own
words . . . the personalreasons why you agreed to
participate.
Outcome Expectations Why does the staff Means and past behavior:
supervisor participate? Who was involved in making the decision about whether
to participate in the student service/research project?
Are organizations and their (check all that apply) __ board of directors/trustees
staffmotivated by identical __ yourself __ a supervisor/boss”
factors? Were you ever involved in [service-learning/internship
projects] when you were a student?
Satisfaction with Are staff and organizations Self- or organization-interest:
Service-Learning expecting to receive a useful Using the following five-point scale,to what extent did
Experience product? each of the following factors affect the organization’s
decision to participate? . . .
Do staffperceive useful The opportunity to take advantage of free labor.
outcomes from service- The opportunity to cultivate among the participating
learning? students potential future volunteers or contributors.
Before the service/internship project started,what were the
general expectations that you or your organization had of
the student doing the project?
After the completion of the project,how would you gener-
ally describe your satisfaction with the student’s work?
What value to the organization did the student’s completed
project actually have? Substantially,somewhat,little or
nocontribution.
18
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 19
Nonprofit Motivations,Expectations,and Outcomes
vide. It may also include the desire to cultivate pation on a Likert scale of one (to no extent)to five
future volunteers and donors,promoting a positive (to a great extent). The motivation section posed
image in the community, fostering a constructive questions aimed at involvement and predominance-
relationship with the university, and recruiting based motivations, such as “it was an opportunity
potential new employees. Finally, as noted above, to give something to the community;” means and
self-interest-based motivations may also include past behavior-based motivations, such as “Have
those associated with positive feelings that may you assisted a student or students with [service-
accrue to the staff supervisor from the perceived learning] activities in the past (i.e.,before the most
benefit they are giving to the student through the recent/current example)?”; and self-interest moti-
service-learning experience. vations, including “it gave you an opportunity to
As outlined above, the Model of Personal have assistance with your personal work load”(see
Donorship (Mount, 1996) helps us to understand Table 1 for more examples).
the influences on the community partner’s decision The outcome expectations section of the survey
to participate in service-learning from many per- posed an open-ended question followed by three
spectives. We are able to see that motivations, ordinal-level questions. For example,one of the ordi-
expectations,and satisfaction with service-learning nal questions asked,“Before the start of the project,
are interrelated. As with most donors,the employ- what value to the organization did you expect from
ees of nonprofit organizations commit to partici- completion of the student’s project?” to which the
pate in service-learning projects because they are following responses were possible: “I expected the
motivated,both by a series of altruistic impulses as outcome from the project to substantiallycontribute
well as the belief that they and their organization to the organization’s work and/or mission,”“I expect-
will benefit in some wayfrom its participation. ed the outcome from the project to somewhat con-
tribute to the organization’s work and/or mission,”
Methodology
and “I did not expect the outcome to contribute to the
organization’s work and/or mission.”
Areas of Investigation
Finally,the satisfaction portion of the survey con-
The purpose of this studyis to learn more about sisted of one open-ended question followed by three
the motivations, expectations, and satisfaction of ordinal questions. The open-ended question in this
community partner organizations and, if different, section asked, “After the completion of the project,
the direct supervisors of the service-learners (see how would you generally describe your satisfaction
Table 1). Our research is directed by the following with the student’s work?” The ordinal questions
questions:What motivates community partner staff asked respondents to rank the level of oversight pro-
members asked to supervise service-learning pro- vided, student competence exhibited, and value of
jects to agree to participate? Are the motivations of the completed project to the organization.
the individual staff supervisors identical to the
Participants and Procedures
motivations associated with the community partner
organizations? What are the expectations of the Organizations were drawn from two lists:one from
staff supervisors when entering in to a particular acourse taught byone of the authorsin Fall 2003 that
service-learning relationship? And how satisfied required students to contact and study local nonprof-
are the staff supervisors with the service-learning it organizations for a class research project, and
experience? The study blends qualitative and quan- another provided by the Bennion Center at the
titative elements,using a mixed methods approach University of Utah.1 The 98 organizations on the
to answer these questions (Creswell,2003). combined list were primarily in the Salt Lake City
metropolitan area. We sent the survey by U.S. mail in
Instrument
April and May 2004 and followed up with phone
We administered a survey to all organizations calls to nonresponders in June. Those contacted by
that had participated in one or more service-learn- phone wereprovided a duplicate copy of the survey
ing projects through a class at the University of ether by U.S. mail or electronic mail upon request.
Utah in the 18 months preceding the study. The We accepted survey responses through July, receiv-
major portions of the survey related to motivations, ing a total of 38 surveys,for an overall response rate
expectations, and satisfaction. The motivations of 38.8%—within the range deemed acceptable in
portion of the survey posed two open-ended ques- social research,albeit on the low side (Baruch,1999).
tions followed by 13 Likert-scale questions that We summarized and analyzed the results of the
sought to identify organizational motivations and Likert-scale portions of the survey, using SPSS to
respondent motivations separately. The survey compute descriptive statistics, primarily frequency
asked respondents to place motivations for partici- distributions,correlations,and cross-tabulations. We
19
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 20
Basinger and Bartholomew
also entered the qualitative data for each question two-fold. We need to get things accomplished and we
into an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed the respons- need to teach the students the importance of service.”
es for content patterns, trends, and outliers in the Although some organizations reported that they sim-
responses. ply needed the help, the majority reported their pri-
mary motivation was,at least in part,to help others—
Results
students,the university,the community. The respons-
Qualitative and quantitative data inform our es from two organizations characterize the motiva-
three areas of investigation: motivations, expecta- tions given by many organizations to participate in
tions,and satisfaction. service-learning: “To have greater community
involvement within the agency. To be involved in
Motivation for Participation
scholarly learning of a greater social issue.”“It is part
As explained in the theoretical framework, the of our mission to educate people about our work and
giving decision in a service-learning relationship is we like to support the university.” Several other
complex. The motivations for the donation of the groups also felt it was a community service to teach
community partner to the student include two com- students about the organization’s mission through the
ponents, organizational motives and staff supervi- service-learning process,as illustrated in these com-
sor motives,and are based on involvement and pre- ments:“We feel that it serves the whole . . . commu-
dominance, means and past behavior, and self- nity to better understand our [organization].”“We felt
interest. it was in the best interest of the community to edu-
Organizational Motivations. The motivations of cate as manypeople as possible about [our mission].”
the organization to participate in service-learning,as Overall, staff supervisors were motivated by the
reported by the staff supervisors of service-learning organization-serving desire to help the organization
projects, varied dramatically but often included a accomplish work and altruistically wanting to use
combination of self-interested motivations related to available means to help educate students, and were
free labor or cultivating future donors, and involve- motivated by predominance and involvement to give
ment and predominance-based motivations such as back to the university and broader community.
helping students learn and cultivating responsible cit- Responses to the Likert-scale questions concern-
izens. In analysis of an open-ended question which ing organizational motivations reveal a similar
asked the reasons why the organization agreed to par- combination of organization-serving and altruistic
ticipate, a dual-purpose motivation emerged. For motivations. The responses suggested that the more
example,one organization responded “The answer is organization-serving motivations of getting free
Table 2
Spearman Correlations between Organizational and Staff Supervisor Motivations
StaffSupervisor Motivation
Cover someRight thing Give to Give to Give to Help with
of my job to do community university students work load
responsibilities
Staff Supervisor Mean 3.34 3.91 4.29 4.00 4.49 2.91
Organizational Organizational
Motivation Mean
Help students learn 4.54 -.297 .101 .186 .329 .286 -.401
(.084) (.565) (.285) (.054) (.096) (.017)*
Foster positive relationship 3.74 .017 .322 .279 .511 .087 -.387
with university (.923) (.059) (.105) (.002)** (.620) (.022)*
Get free labor from student 3.00 .115 -.028 .049 -.047 -.116 .457
(.510) (.875) (.779) (.789) (.508) (.007)*
Service-learning participation 3.86 -.050 .056 .174 .341 -.034 -.050
part of mission (.773) (.751) (.318) (.045)* (.848) (.774)
Enhance community image 2.69 .195 -.105 .212 .314 -.081 .000
(.262) (.550) (.223) (.066) (.643) (.998)
Cultivate good citizens 4.11 -.077 .451 .291 .355 .352 -.166
(.660) (.006)* (.090) (.037)* (.038)* (.341)
Cultivate future volunteers 3.80 .209 .167 .355 .337 .192 .378
and donors (.228) (.337) (.036)* (.048)* (.269) (.025)*
Note.Scale:1 (to no extent) through 5 (to a great extent). * p<.05 ** p<.005
20
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 21
Nonprofit Motivations,Expectations,and Outcomes
labor and cultivating future volunteers were prima- and the modal response for this motivation was a 5 (to
ry for some organizations. Twenty-two groups a great extent), the motivation to cultivate good citi-
(57.9%) said these factors motivated their partici- zens mean value was 4.11,and the mean value for fos-
pation toagreat extent. Other organizations, how- tering a positive relationship with the university was
ever, were not motivated by these organization- 3.74. Generally, the mean values for organization-
serving factors and were instead motivated by more serving motivations were lower. The free labor moti-
altruistic factors. Eleven organizations (28.9%) vation was 3.00 (which equated to some extent on the
reported they were motivated to no extent by the Likert scale) and the modal category for this motiva-
free labor,six organizations (15.8%) were motivat- tion was a 1 (to no extent), the mean for cultivating
ed only to a slight extentby the opportunity to cul- future donors and volunteers was 3.80,and the mean
tivate future volunteers and donors,and eight orga- value for motivation to “improve community image”
nizations (21.1%) reported they were motivated to was 2.69. Many respondents indicated in the open-
no extentby the opportunity to improve the organi- ended questions that they felt working to meet the mis-
zation’s community image. Rather,most organiza- sion of their organization was also working to improve
tions were motivated to a great extent a desire to society, and thus we consider the mission-based
give—to the community,to the university,or to the motive to be both altruistic and organization-serving;
students. Finally, many organizations (n = 16; the mean value for the motivation to participate in ser-
39.5%) also saw participating in such projects as vice-learning because it is part of the organization’s
related to the mission of the nonprofit. In addition, mission was 3.86.
14 of the 38 staffsupervisors (36.8%) reported that Staff Supervisor Motivations. Staff supervisor
theywere motivated to a great extent or to a moder- motivations were distinct from organizational
ate extent by both the organization’s need for free motivations in 29 of the 38 (76%) survey respons-
labor and desire to help educate students. es and generally more personal in nature, as one
These Likert scale items were also examined for might expect. Sentiments in the following quota-
correlations between the organizational motiva- tion aretypical of manyexpressed by staff supervi-
tions and the staff supervisor motivations (see sors about their own motivations for participating:
Table 2). Notably, the correlations between the “I thought it would be great to give others an
staff supervisor’s desire to help the university and opportunity to work with this fantastic population.
organization’s various motivations were the most Part of gaining an education should include some
frequently statistically significant correlations. hands-on experience. We are able to offer that to
Statistically significant correlations also exist students.”
between the staff supervisor’s desire to help the The responses on the Likert scale questions were
community and organization’s need to build con- also predominately based on predominance and
nections with futurevolunteersand donors,and the involvement-type impulses. The highest mean
staff supervisor’s desire to do the right thing and value related to the motivation to help students in
their desire to generate labor for the organization, general at 4.49, followed closely by the desire to
as related to the organization’s desire to make good help the community at 4.29,and the motivations to
citizens. Though not strong correlations, at .355, help the university at 4.00,and the purely altruistic
.451, and .378, respectively, these connections “because it was the right thing to do”at 3.91.
reveal that the motivations of the staff supervisor The purely self-interest-based motives were on
and those of the organization as identified by the average much lower. For example, the motivation
staff supervisor are distinct but interrelated. The to have help with one’s own workload was a mean
staff supervisor’s desire to generate labor for the of only 2.91 and the motivation to have someone
organization is inversely related to the organiza- else cover the staffsupervisor’s normal job respon-
tion’s commitment to help students learn as well as sibilities was 3.34. The correlation between the
its connection to the university. staffsupervisor’smotivation for labor and the orga-
Organization-serving motivations seemed to be less nization’s need for labor was .457 and significant at
important overall than the involvement and predomi- the p=.01level (see Table 2). This correlation sug-
nance-based motivations. Although respondents were gests that the self-interest and organization-serving
not asked to rank order their motivations, the mean motivations are related to one another and those
response for each motivation reflects its average with a self interest in having service from students
importance to all staff supervisors and generally the may more easily recognize the organization’s need
mean values for the “helping others”motivations were for their contributions.
consistently high. The mean value reported (on a scale The degree to which the staff supervisor’s job
of 1 [to no extent] to 5 [to a great extent]) for the moti- description includes facilitating service-learning rela-
vation to help students to learn was quite high at 4.54 tionships is obviously important in evaluating the rel-
21
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 22
Basinger and Bartholomew
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Staff Supervisor Expectations of Service-Learning
Expected Value of Student’s Work Expected Staff Oversight Expected Student’s Competence
Mean = 1.53 Mean = 1.93 Mean = 3.31
Categories: Categories: Categories:
(3) Substantial contribution (3) Substantial Oversight (1) Above Employees
(2) Some contribution (2) Moderate Oversight (2) Same as employees
(1) No contribution (1) Minimum Oversight (3) Between employee and volunteers
(4) Same as other volunteers
(5) Below volunteers
Note.Spearman’s correlation (statistical significance).
ative importance of motives. If the staff supervisor is expected the outcome from the project to somewhat
required to participate in service-learning as a condi- contribute to the organization’s work and/or mission”
tion of employment, their other stated motivations (n=14). As the average number of service-learning
can rightfully be viewed as secondary. The mean projects that the staff supervisors have participated in
Likert response testing the degree to which a staff prior to the survey was 14, we believe that their
supervisor was affected in their decision to partici- expectations were not simply idealistic, but rather
pate in service-learning because it was part of their may reflect prior positive experiences.
“normal job responsibilities” was 3.3, indicating a The mean value for expected oversight of service-
moderate level of influence. From our experience learning students is 1.93 (see Table 3),which indicates
with nonprofit organizations, however, there are staff supervisors expected they would need to exercise
many staff members who loosely understand their slightly less than a moderate level of oversight. Finally,
job to include a variety of unspecified activities, the expected competence was 3.31,indicating thatthe
including arrangements such as service-learning pro- staff supervisors expected that the competence level of
jects. Then, on the other hand, there are those who the students would be slightly higher than that of their
haveservice-learning or other similar types of volun- typical volunteer. This may be related to the addition-
teer arrangements explicitly stated in their job al supervision and learning associated with the class
descriptions. The degree to which the staff supervi- links for service-learning projects.
sors in this study are either in the former or latter cat- The responses were mixed to the open-ended
egories cannot be disaggregated from this data. question addressing staff supervisor expectations
Moreover,even within the latter category,we cannot of the students. Although a few organizations
assume that those tasked with volunteer coordination expressed reservation,(e.g.,students “don’t expect
would necessarily interpret that component of their too much and have a back-up plan”),many organi-
job description to include service-learning. zations have positive expectations, as indicated by
Outcome Expectations these typical comments:
The Model of Personal Donorship (Mount, 1996) Materials [developed] to use long-term [and]
more relationships in the community.
suggests that the level of involvement of a donor is an
important predictor of the giving behavior of that
The project would be completed well and in
donor and that involvement is the result of expected the appropriate time-frame.
satisfaction. Further,Mount (p. 10) asserts,“the belief
that one’s gift can make a difference is a precondition We expect the students to be reliable and
dependable.
of the warm glow known as the joy of giving (for
example,Panas,1984).”To understand the donation of They would give to staff and (clients) what
community partners to students in the service-learning they could get back….that way we all learn
relationship,therefore,we evaluated the expectations something together.
of the staffregarding the service-learning project.
Our expectations were that we would give stu-
To better understand the motivation related to past
dents an opportunity to learn more about [our
experience and expectations for service we asked,
mission] and theywould assist us in [our mis-
“Before the start of the project, what value to the
sion-related work].
organization did you expect from completion of the
student’s project?” Seventy-six percent of the staff
Satisfaction with Service-Learning Experience
supervisors chose either “I expected the outcome
from the project to substantially contribute to the Finally, the theories of giving suggest that past
organization’s work and/or mission,” (n = 15) or “I behavior is an important predictor of future dona-
22
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 23
Nonprofit Motivations,Expectations,and Outcomes
tions. We expected that not only past involvement be communicating overall impressions of their total
with service-learning (either as a staff supervisor or experiences with service-learning. This does not,
as a student),but also the level of satisfaction with however, reduce the value of these results. We
those experiences, would be important in under- sought to understand why organizations choose to
standing the motivation to participate in current participate in service-learning and the perceived
and future relationships. We were,therefore,inter- benefits of the process. We believe that these sur-
ested in the community partner’s perception of the veys,though post-hoc,will allow us to draw relevant
outcomes of student competence and the value the conclusions regarding these questions.
service-learning contributed to the organization.
Motivation for Participation
Most respondents (52.6%), reported that the
value of the completed project was substantial (n= As discussed above,the motivation to help others
20) and no respondents indicated that it was of lit- was expected to be an important reason that the
tle or no value. In addition, the staff supervisors staffers supervising service-learning projects chose
generally seem to have been satisfied with the com- to involve their organizations as community partners.
petence of the service-learning students. Staff As the research on donor motivation suggests (Ott,
supervisors reported most often that they expected 2001),many people give in a “pay it forward”fash-
the competence level of the service-learning stu- ion because they received a gift or service that was
dents would be either at the same level as other vol- helpful in the past,and they want to provide a simi-
unteers (n=13) or between the level of an employ- lar kind of assistance to others now and in the future.
ee and a volunteer (n=13). Given this cultural norm,we expected the motivation
The actual outcomes do not seem to be related to to participate in service-learning would be strongest
eachother (see Table 4). Assessment of actual pro- among those staff supervisors who had participated
ject value,actual oversight required,and actual stu- in service-learning as students and had a positive
dent competence do not correlate strongly with one experience. Unfortunately there were not enough
another and none of these Spearman’scorrelations respondents without service-learning experience to
are statistically significant at the p< .05 level. We allow us to test this correlation. No pattern emerged,
also calculated the correlation between each per- however,that would suggest staffers without service-
sonal motivation variable, and the expectation and learning experience were less likely to be motivated
satisfaction criteria, and found that regardless of to help students. In other words, the motivation to
the motivations for participation, staffers expected help the students seems to be equally strong,regard-
to receive something of value from the organiza- less of previous exposure to service-learning on
tion’s participation in service-learning. either side of the relationship.
Morethan one-third(36%) reported that the actual Motivations for both staffsupervisors and organi-
competencyof the students was higher (n=14) than zations did, however, clearly follow the remaining
they expected prior to beginning the service-learning aspects of the Personal Donorship model.
project, and another 34.2% performed at the antici- Motivations to participate in service-learning clearly
pated level of competence (n=13). involved some self-interest and also emotional con-
nections to students,to the university,and to the com-
Discussion
munity.The model helps to identify important factors
As these surveys were administered after the ser- in this reciprocal relationship between student volun-
vice-learning projects were complete,and there had teers,staff supervisors,and nonprofit organizations.
been in many cases several months to a year of time
Outcome Expectations
lapsed,we are mindful of the potential for errors in
the data. Although we asked staff supervisors to This analysis endeavored to understand how
address their responses specifically to the most much effort the staffer supervising the student
recent service-learning occurrence,many seemed to expected to put into the project, and the staffer’s
Table 4
Assessment of Actual Outcomes of Service-Learning
Value to Organization Actual Oversight Required Actual Student
of Completed Project Competency
Mean = 1.31 Mean = 1.62 Mean = 1.62
Value to Organization
of Completed Project — -.114 (.558) .115 (.554)
Actual Oversight -.114 (.558) — .341 (.070)
23
Imposed-MJCSL 12-2 4/10/06 3:27 PM Page 24
Basinger and Bartholomew
expectation of the value of the project to the orga- especially with group work. Some groups
nization. As discussed above, the authors shared a never worked together and our office was left
similar experience regarding the limited contribu- with mixed messages or confusing deadlines.
tions from service-learning projects as former We would orient one person to our vision for a
project and that information was not success-
staffers in different types of nonprofits in different
fully passed along to others. Some students
parts of the country. Anecdotally, we found there
never took the initiative to make a writing pro-
was often minimal value to the nonprofit organiza-
ject worthwhile, the[n] passed the work back
tion as a direct result of the various service-learn-
to us. One Web site group sapped hours of our
ing projects we supervised. Through the survey staff time and gave us a ridiculous end prod-
results, we observed that both organizations and uct—something we would never use ([one]
staffers were somewhat motivated by the organiza- student was more excited about getting soft-
tion-serving and self-interest variables, but they ware to do cool things than listening to our
were also motivated, often to a greater degree, by vision and needs as an organization). One
the primarily altruistic variables related to means, group of students had a pilot experience for a
teacher and in the end,[neither] they (nor the
past behavior,involvement,and predominance.
teacher) had a clear idea of what they could do
Based on these outcomes we expected to find that
for our organization that made sense with the
our own anecdotal experiences might prove to be
class. All of that aside, our past two [service-
representative of the experiences of other staffers
learning students] have been excellent.
supervising service-learning projects. In other words,
if staffers and organizations express a higher level of We had a student design a Web Site. It was
motivation relating to giving to students,the univer- great, but they never got around to loading it
and they didn’t leave it for us to do.
sity, and the community than they express for the
value received by the organization, they may not
In responses to the ordinal questions on satisfac-
have high expectations of the service-learning pro-
tion,only four staff supervisors indicated that they
jects. This is not, however, what we found. Rather,
had prior experiences with service-learning that
staff supervisors expected the value of the work to be
were either “somewhat negative” (n = 1) or “neu-
fairly substantial. We believed that the reasons a per-
tral,”(n=3) and no staff supervisors indicated that
son enrolled their organization in the project and the
they had prior experiences with service-learning
reasons they themselves agreed to supervise the pro-
that were “very negative”(n=0); this from a pool
ject may be different and both may be important. For
of respondents that had collectively supervised
example, while education may be unrelated to the
morethan 300 service-learning situations.
organization’s mission, the overworked service-
As nonprofit staffers,we continued to participate in
learning supervisor may have been motivated to get
service-learning projects, notwithstanding the mixed
additional help on a specific project within the
quality of many of the work products, because we
responsibilities of her job.
believed that there was intrinsic value in the effort. As
We also anticipated that those staffers who
professors,we carry out our belief in the intrinsic value
expected to provide a great deal of oversight, and
of service-learning by constructing service opportuni-
those that did not expect a high degree of compe-
ties as part of the learning for the students enrolled in
tence from students, would need to be more moti-
our courses. Wearepleased to find thatthis studypro-
vated by altruistic factors to participate. We found,
vides some evidence of the value of these service-
however, that there was no significant relationship
learning projects,not only to the students,but also to
between expectations and altruistic motivations,
the community partners.
indicating thatregardless of the amount of work the
supervisor expected to contribute to the service- Conclusion
learning effort,they were sufficiently motivated by
Clearly not all service-learning situations are
their desire to help students to learn and for the
ideal. It is important for educators constructing ser-
organization to receive something of benefit.
vice-learning projects to take into account the
Satisfaction with Service-Learning Experience needs of both students and community partners.
Existing research (Jacoby, 1996) suggests many
In manyof our own experiences as staffers super-
criteria that will enhance student learning courses
vising service-learning projects, the students’ work
and cautions professors to be mindful of communi-
did not lead to valuable contributions to our organi-
ty needs rather than creating service-learning pro-
zations. This outcome was reflected in only two
jects in their ivory towers. Although no existing
responses to an open-ended question on satisfaction:
research examines the responsibilities of the non-
[A] fewearly experiences were nightmarish— profit organizations, our study suggests it is also
24