Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55030836
label
Melanne Verveer’s Mail - 1998 - A [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55030836
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Melanne Verveer’s Mail - 1998 - A [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Melanne Verveer's Correspondence files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55030836
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42219139-20130534S-017-002-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6fb3527505616820
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. letter
To Melanne Verveer from Thomas L. Applin (2 pages)
09/12/1998
Personal Mistile
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Melanne Verveer
OA/Box Number: 14384
FOLDER TITLE:
Melanne Verveer's Mail - 1998 - A [2]
2014-0534-S
rv1601
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
SERVICE LEARNING:
A NATIONAL STRATEGY
FOR
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Susan M. Andersen
Department of Psychology
New York University
© Susan M. Andersen
July, 1998
A position paper issued by the Education Policy Task Force, Institute for Communitarian Policy
Studies, George Washington University. Based in part on the Task Force on Service Learning
and Community Service, Conference on Character Building sponsored by The Communitarian
Network, The White House, and Congress, June 12, 1997 (Chair, Susan M. Andersen), and on a
related workshop conducted at the New England Conference on Community Service Learning,
November 18, 1997 (co-led by Don Ernst, Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development).
Table of Contents
I. Policy Recommendations
A. National, State, and Local Levels
B. School Level
II. Rationale
A. What is the Need and Why Service Learning?
The sense of connection and belonging.
Relationship-building and community-building.
Overcoming intergroup barriers.
B. What is Service Learning?
Basic definitions.
Service Learning involves regular opportunities for reflection.
Service Learning is integrated into an organized curriculum.
Some other distinctions.
C. Examples of Service Learning
Tutoring.
Peer-mentoring.
Environmental projects.
Social service projects.
D. What Does Service Learning Accomplish?
Engaging youth with their communities.
Developing the ethic of service.
Enhancing civic attitudes.
Cultivating social connectedness.
Fostering acceptance of diversity.
Developing competence/self-esteem and protecting against risky behavior.
Improving/supporting academic achievement.
E. Voluntary or Required?
Voluntary Service Learning opportunities for students.
Mandating Service Learning for all students.
F. National Campaign to Promote Service Learning
"Formal" and "informal" Service Learning.
Partnerships.
Seed funding.
Private-public partnerships and seed funding.
Guidelines for quality.
Guidelines for assessing effectiveness.
Guidelines for implementation.
G. Conclusion
i
Service Learning: A National Strategy
1
I. Policy Recommendations
National, State, and Local Levels
All young people should have available to them the opportunity to engage in community service as
part of K-12 and higher education. That is, they should have an opportunity to participate in Service
Learning. Whether coordinated by schools or by community-based organizations, Service Learning is
community service integrated into an organized curriculum and accompanied by systematic reflection, and
it should be promoted and offered within educational institutions. The Administration and Congress should
pursue a agenda to make Service Learning a reality in schools nationwide on a voluntary basis. This agenda
should reach across government agencies--with a focus on the Corporation for National Service and the
Department of Education based on their Joint Declaration in 1995 to collaborate in increasing Service Learning as
part of Goal 3 of Goals 2000 involving citizenship education. Other collaborative arrangements should also be
facilitated: Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Labor all have a stake. A federal commitment to provide seed funding for private-public
partnerships is needed with careful outreach to communities, schools, foundations, and the private sector.
Service Learning needs to be advocated at the national level so as to build private-public
partnerships in support of Service Learning--as a tool for building common bonds, building a "sense" of
community, and healing inter-group tensions. Because Service Learning brings together young people from all
backgrounds in pursuit of shared goals, it facilitates intergroup cooperation and reduces tensions. Backed by a
nationwide campaign with a coherent national voice, Service Learning can be advocated as an integrative strategy
for advancing multiple aims in youth development, civic education, and character education: civic engagement,
the ethic of service, civic attitudes, a sense of social connection with others, acceptance of diversity, academic
achievement, and perhaps even reductions in risky behavior.
A national campaign should be undertaken to promote and distribute existing guidelines and best
practices about Service Learning, to every school and school district in K-12 education and to every college
and university, with voluntary participation of principals/deans and teachers/professors invited.
Improvements should be made in the existing infrastructure for providing technical assistance and
professional development to teachers, staff, and administrators. Funds are needed for school improvement at
the National, State, and Local levels to support teacher training, professional development, and technical
assistance, now available largely on a fee-for-service basis, leaving poor school districts without assistance.
AmeriCorps programs designed to facilitate Service Learning should be cultivated, extending the
small proportion of AmeriCorps members now doing service that promotes Service Learning. State and
local agencies should be encouraged to appoint a specialist in Service Learning, as should each federal
agency pursuing Service Learning initiatives.
Relevant professional organizations, private foundations, community organizations, and federally
funded centers for educational reform should be called on to include Service Learning in their agenda.
Both basic and applied research are needed to examine how Service Learning influences youth
development, character and civic education, and skill and academic learning. Both multi-site longitudinal
studies with long-term follow-ups and short-term assessments are needed, as is basic research on what
fosters prosocial values and behavior, and civic engagement.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
2
The capabilities and scope of the infrastructure providing information about Service Learning on
request should be enhanced. The Service Learning Clearinghouse (1-800-808-SERV) should be expanded to
give callers, the most up-to-date guidelines and best-practices, in addition to abstracts and citations, and
importantly, to provide curriculum examples, information about reflection, and specific articles detailing methods,
legal matters, along with local referrals for training and technical assistance.
School Level
K-12 schools should be encouraged to:
offer Service Learning as an after-school activity, given that this is a high-risk time of the day for
young people, without restricting all Service Learning to after-school activities.
experiment with block scheduling so as to permit more time for Service Learning activities within
the school day. Although Service Learning can be done without such restructuring, longer blocks of time
per class permit more extensive activities, and limiting it to after-school programs excludes students who
must work after school or tend to family responsibilities.
Institutions of higher education should be encouraged to
partner with K-12 schools to enable Service Learning undergraduates to serve in local schools, to
help give K-12 students Service Learning opportunities.
include training in Service Learning within their teacher education programs (and encourage
teacher licensure programs to include such requirements).
Each school, college, and university should be encouraged to:
work in collaboration with its students, teachers and staff to assess the needs of the local
community and its existing capacities, to ensure that any services offered address genuine community
needs and that students collaborate with the community.
do a self-assessment to determine what service activities are ongoing in the school to build on these
strengths by integrating the service into a curriculum with regular opportunities for reflection.
identify a Service Learning coordinator who can help organize Service Learning activities
within and outside the school.
identify a professor or teacher in each grade or academic level (or field) already doing Service
Learning or interested, as a faculty resource to be developed.
partner with at least one community-based organization offering Service Learning in an
"informal" (non-school-based) curriculum thoughtfully organized and including reflection. Such
"informal" Service Learning that can be part of students' ongoing education if educational institutions
legitimize student participation academically.
allocate time in the school day for teachers to prepare Service Learning activities, to meet with
each other, and to collaborate with outside organizations.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
3
II. Rationale
Acts of service are the dues we pay for living in a democracy.
Marian Wright Edelman
A. What is the Need and Why Service Learning?
Inspiring active participation among youth in their communities can strengthen individual communities,
and by extension, the American community. Broadening the web of caring beyond the self, special interests, and
one's own in-group can enable a wider and deeper commitment to prosocial aims. This proposal argues that a
concrete means of facilitating this, and to revitalize civil society, can be found in citizen service, and particularly,
Service Learning, as a national strategy for youth development (sce Carnegie Council on Adolescent
Development, 1989). It is a strategy defined largely in terms of character and civic education. It involves
working together with others on equal footing toward the shared aim of contributing to the common good and can
help engender a sense of community among youth, a crucial factor in youth development.
The sense of connection and belonging. Recent evidence shows that youth are vulnerable to high-risk
behaviors when they experience a lack of connectedness within their communities (Blum & Rinehart, 1997).
Correspondingly, the broader lack of connectedness among adults in our society--across socioeconomic divides--is
often considered perilous because civic disengagement may indicate a fraying in the fabric of civil society (Bellah
et al., 1985; Elshtain, 1995; Etzioni, 1983, 1993; Rifkin, 1995, 1996, 1997; Putnam, 1995a, 1995b). Studies of
civic engagement vary in measures from surveys about voluntary participation in the community to voting (Chen,
1992; Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995), and differences of opinion exist on the levels of civic disengagement
(e.g., Lemann, 1996; Stengel, 1996; Youniss et al., 1997). Still, there are "warning signs of exhaustion,
cynicism, opportunism, and despair" in American society (Elshtain, 1995), and a lack of civic engagement does
not augur well for any democracy (e.g., Barber, 1984).
Active participation is required for democratic societies to thrive, and this makes policies designed to
facilitate civic engagement of national interest. Service Learning is such a strategy. A vibrant civil society exists
when people participate in civic and public affairs, and can identify shared values about the common good, while
Service Learning: A National Strategy
4
celebrating diversity and individual freedom (e.g., Barber, 1992; Etzioni, 1993, 1997; Rifkin, 1995). This
process is part of Service Learning and derives from its basis in experiential learning (e.g., Kendall & Associates,
1990). Active collaboration among students and teachers can be useful not only in education, but also in youth
development, as suggested at least indirectly by the single, largest longitudinal research project on youth
development to date (Blum & Rinehart, 1997; Resnick et al., 1997). The results clearly demonstrate that when
adolescents experience a positive sense of connection--in their neighborhoods and schools, and of course in their
families--they avoid risky health behaviors. When youth are disenfranchised and disengaged, they are more often
involved in drug use and violence, have an earlier age of sexual debut, and experience more emotional distress
(including suicidal ideation). Strong and positive social ties--not in gangs--constitute a powerful force for
prevention (Connell, Aber, & Walker, 1993; Elliott, Wilson, Huizinga, Sampson, Elliott, & Rankin, 1996;
Sampson, Raudenbush, Earls, 1997; National Research Council, 1993; Wilson, 1987, 1991), and the recent
research on Service Learning described here shows that it promotes social connection and engagement.
Relationship-building and community-building. Positive relationships define the "social capital" youth
need to thrive, and two distinct, complementary elements of social capital or "relationship capital" appear to exist
(Briggs, 1997). Some positive relationships provide support, caring, and warmth, supporting this very basic
human need (e.g., Andersen, Reznik, & Chen, 1997; Baumeiester & Leary, 1995). Some relationships also help
youth navigate the broader social world, with guidance, competence-building experiences, and networking skills
for advancing, doing well in career preparation, and taking a step up.
The importance of "connectedness" suggested by recent evidence makes it clear that discovering ways to
provide all youth, irrespective of family circumstance or income, the opportunity to work together with each other
and with adults to build social capital is warranted. Positive relationships in communities make for greater
collective efficacy (e.g., Sampson et al., 1997) and make communities work (Wilson, 1987, 1991). Youth benefit
both from knowing "successful, upwardly mobile, mid-life adults" (Chalk & Phillips, 1996, p. 13), and from
caring relationships with adults (Benard, 1995) and peers (McGuire & Weisz, 1982). Hands-on work with youth
can make a difference in forming such relationships. By involving youth in collaboration and dialogue, so as to
Service Learning: A National Strategy
5
assess community needs and capacities, and decide jointly on actions that might solve identified problems, youth
can take leadership and effect change. This is the basis of capacity-building in communities (Kretzmann &
McKnight, 1993; Henton, Melville, & Walesh, 1997) and in Service Learning (e.g., Stephens, 1995).
Increasingly, youth development efforts proceed in this way, emphasizing youth as "resources" so as to
move beyond "deficit" to "capacity" models that enable youth to build on their strengths (Checkoway, 1994) and
to become an engine for community renewal, in part by enhancing their civic engagement. If disengagement
reflects not only lack of interest, but also lack of trust in others (Broder, 1997), in political/civic aspirations, and
in leaders (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Capella & Jamieson, 1997; Galston, 1996), then activities conducted within a
capacity-building framework, such as Service Learning, can conceivably begin to address these matters.
Wherever one stands on issues of decline in civic participation, there is agreement that social capital
among youth is imperative, and depends on the quality of relationships (e.g., Briggs, 1997; Chalk & Phillips,
1996; Wilson, 1987; 1991). Social capital can also be conceived in terms of emotional intelligence--the capacity
to relate to others sensitively and competently (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990; see also Cantor &
Kilhstrom, 1987). As such, social capital is multidimensional, but clearly based on relationships (Kretzmann &
McKnight, 1993), an assumption that makes sense in communitarian terms (Etzioni, 1993, 1996; Sandel, 1996).
Overcoming intergroup barriers. Capacity-building among youth is of special value when intergroup
tensions--based on divisions such as race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gang membership, or other
differences--because it can bring people together toward common goals. In social-psychological research on
intergroup relations and social identity, it is well known that identifying with a particular in-group leads to
stereotyping out-group members (e.g., Brewer, 1979; Mackie & Hamilton, 1993; Ruscher & Fiske, 1993). So,
when people define themselves more globally--in a way that includes out-group members in their social identity--
this broadened collective identity decreases their tendency to stereotype and increases their sense of social
"justice" (Brewer, 1996; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz,
& Brewer, 1993; Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996). Identifying with a larger community thus has "healing"
properties, and Service Learning permits this, by enabling youth to collaborate with each other and with adults.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
6
Conceived in terms of race relations, we have long known that busing youth to integrate schools does not
ensure that shared activities are pursued or friendships forged across racial lines (Brewer & Miller, 1984;
Hewstone, 1986; Pettigrew, in press-1998). Very often there is voluntary social segregation in schools (Dent,
1993; Tatum, 1997), as elsewhere in society (e.g., Shipler, 1997). However, when activities explicitly enable
youth--and adults--to work together cooperatively across intergroup boundaries, this can heal tensions (Hawley &
Jackson, 1995; Heath & McLaughlin, 1993; Slavin & Madden, 1979). Again, Service Learning does this.
In the following pages, research is reviewed showing that Service Learning fosters youth development--as
assessed by a variety of indicators. At the outset, Service Learning is defined, and types of Service Learning
considered. The comprehensive literature review follows. Some consideration is then given to the debate about
voluntary or mandatory Service Learning. Then a national strategy for making Service Learning more widely
available to youth throughout the nation--based on policies that support private-public partnerships--is presented.
Overall, the evidence justifies acting now to make Service Learning a central part of our national
conversation on education, to build collaborations between educational institutions and communities, and to give
all youth the opportunity to serve.
B. What is Service Learning?
Some basic definitions. Service Learning is a growing pedagogy that integrates community service into
an organized curriculum that includes regular opportunities for personal reflection. In Service Learning:
youth are encouraged to take the lead
in responding to genuine community needs
through service that is integrated into a thoughtfully organized curriculum
and accompanied by regular opportunities for personal reflection
There is more to be said about guidelines, addressed in detail later, but these four basics in Service Learning are
widely shared (derived from ASLER and Wingspread Guidelines; ASLER, 1993; Honnet & Poulsen, 1989; see
also Cairn & Kielsmeier, 1995; Clark, 1993; Gulati-Partee & Finger, 1996; Kielsmeier, 1997; Kinsley, 1997;
Kinsley & McPherson, 1995; Jacoby, 1996; Totten & Pedersen, 1997). Service Learning invites children and
Service Learning: A National Strategy
7
youth to work together and with adults to serve within their own school (or another school) by tutoring or peer-
mentoring, or in the broader community by working in environmental settings, food banks, community or senior
centers. It offers the opportunity to serve, giving youth the sense that they can make a difference by using what
they have learned (Kendall & Associates, 1990; Kennedy, 1991; Sagawa & Halperin, 1993; Wofford, 1994).
There are many inspiring anecdotes that have built up around Service Learning over recent years, and the
research has now begun to catch up. Although more research is always needed, the existing evidence in support
of Service Learning is compelling. Service Learning is not a silver bullet. It is a targeted and effective strategy
for youth development that builds on the strengths of youth in the context of education and service.
Service Learning involves regular opportunities for reflection. Refection is basic to Service Learning
both because of its relevance to the curriculum into which the service integrated and because it is personal, giving
students the opportunity to think and write and talk about what they have learned. It also allows students to
express their personal feelings about the difficult conditions they have observed (e.g., homelessness) and to try to
understand them. When students share their experiences with others, in small, informal groups, much of the real
learning in Service Learning takes place (Cunningham, 1996; Genzer & Finger, 1996; Hatcher & Bringle, 1996;
Harvey, 1996; National Helper's Network, 1991; Silcox, 1993; Toole & Toole, 1995; Wells, 1997). One-to-one
reflection may also occur, so that youth less likely to speak in a group are able to communicate with another
participant. Journal-writing is also an option. Importantly, reflection enables students think through how to
improve their efforts to serve, to better address community needs, and to use existing community and school
resources more wisely. This involves active negotiating, planning, and evaluating. It also helps students better
understand curricular materials, solidifying learning.
Refection also helps establish new relationships between Service Learning students, and with adults and
staff-because of its honest, supportive, collaborative nature. Indeed, a major aim of reflection is to foster caring
relationships while serving the community competently (National Helper's Network, 1991). Such open dialogue
can facilitate greater caring (e.g., Noddings, 1994; Tatum, 1992) because it requires respectful listening and the
expression of one's own perceptions and feelings, which can be transformative (see Tirozzi & Uro, 1997). It is
Service Learning: A National Strategy
8
practice in the art caring, which is likely contribute to emotional intelligence, youth resilience, and social capital
(Benard, 1995; Briggs, 1997; Bullard, 1996; Duvall, 1994; Noddings, 1988; Goleman, 1995; Rutter, 1987).
Ideally, reflection includes participants from a variety of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds,
so that it reduces barriers and builds bonds between students who might not otherwise engage in dialogue, nor see
commonalities, because they are from different backgrounds and/or because of prejudice. When students come to
"identify with" the act of being of service, thus becoming closer to others also serving, as well as with those
served, they become more likely to engage in perspective-taking and experience an enhanced sense of connection
with others. Meaningful communication between students about their effort to make a difference also increases
social discourse on service at this micro-level, paving the way for more broad-based civic dialogue over time.
Of course, there are different levels at which reflection can be implemented--after the service, both before
and after the service, or systematically throughout the service including before and after. Reflection in advance is
important because it allows students to assess community needs, along with community capacities, so that they
can actively design and implement services in the context of their curriculum. Without reflection in advance, this
is not possible. Reflection throughout offers the opportunity to air concerns and make service corrections mid-
stream. Reflection afterward enables greater understanding and closure, and celebration of achievements.
Service Learning is integrated into an organized curriculum. Service Learning is designed to enrich a
curriculum, to make the curriculum relevant, and thus to support the academic knowledge acquired in the
curriculum, while learning real-world skills. In Service Learning, students "learn by doing," building new
competencies and sometimes even learning marketable expertise, which makes Service Learning resemble school-
to-work and internship programs, that is, when focused on service and including a curricular and reflection basis
(Gomez, 1996; Silcox, 1995; see also Rifkin, 1997). Because Service Learning is designed to make didactic
material relevant to solving real-world problems, the curriculum component is essential. Service Learning taps
higher order problem-solving skills, helping children and youth to use their knowledge in new ways, and supports
the curriculum by involving the "whole student" in the learning process with all his or her senses.
The curriculum component of Service Learning is what gives Service Learning meaning for students--
Service Learning: A National Strategy
9
helping to ensure that students are not simply logging in community service hours or filling a gap in their resume.
It shows how service relates to learning and suggests ways to use knowledge gained to address social problems.
Conceptions of Service Learning have evolved over more than a decade (Kendall & Associates, 1990) and
continue to do so (e.g., Dugan, 1997), but a relevant and organized curriculum integration is essential. Numerous
curriculum examples are available at all grade and academic levels (e.g., Cairn & Coble, 1993; Cairn &
Kielsmeier, 1995; Cofer, 1997; Developmental Studies Center, 1996; Kinsley & McPherson, 1995; Jacoby, 1996;
LaPlante & Kinsley, 1994; Lewis, 1994 National Helper's Network, 1995; National Youth Leadership Council,
1994; Stephens, 1995; Totten & Pedersen, 1997), suggesting excellent practices for all ages based on a wide
variety of service activities. And new curricular examples continue to become available.
Some other distinctions. Service Learning:
is not simply community service
is used "formally" in schools, colleges, and universities
is also be used "informally" in community-based organizations
invokes an atmosphere in which everyone is a learner and a beneficiary
is neither the "privileged" helping the poor nor the "poor" repaying a societal debt
is social responsibility for all regardless of socioeconomic background
need not be mandatory in education, but may be available as an opportunity
In the latter vein, it has even been argued that Service Learning is an exercise in civic participation and
liberty (Barber, 1992). When multiple options for Service Learning activities are available, or when the
experience is entirely voluntary, so that children and youth (and their parents) are able to opt out, there is little
basis for worry about concerns such as "forced servitude." Critics of Service Learning have clearly raised these
issues, and poorly implemented Service Learning efforts should be improved so as to emphasize active student
decision-making and collaboration (with parental and community voices heard as well). But the language of
"forced servitude" flies in the face of basic definitions of Service Learning and thus should not be problematic.
More appears on the debate concerning Service Learning requirements VS. options in subsequent pages, but
Service Learning: A National Strategy
10
suffice it to say for now that proper implementation can resolve such concerns.
Importantly, Service Learning also involves mutual exchange between "helper" and "recipient," as noted,
enabling students of all ages to see that they have much to learn from each other and from working together in
real-world situations with people in difficult circumstances and trying to make a difference--with the guidance and
encouragement of teachers, professors, and staff. The emphasis on mutual exchange is especially crucial in the
relationship between the Service Learning student and those served. To ensure that the service is responsive to a
real community need, members of the community must be asked about their own needs, and the services tailored
accordingly. The strengths and special capacities of those served, which they might want to contribute as well,
also are important to identify. A crucial factor is to determine whether or not a given service is wanted so as to
make sure to address a genuine need. Of course, service must also be delivered with caring and respect for the
dignity of those served, and a similar caring and respect is encouraged between teachers and students, staff and
students, teachers and staff, and so on.
When mutual exchange is present in Service Learning, its positive outcomes are more likely to occur (see
Scales & Blyth, 1997). When those served are respected and their own capacities acknowledged, a collaborative
atmosphere emerges in which everyone is a learner and everyone a beneficiary (see Ayers & Ray, 1995), a matter
captured well by an Australian Aboriginal woman (cited in Weah & Wegner, 1997), "If you are coming over to
help me, don't bother. But if you're coming over because you think your liberation is bound up with mine, let's
work together." Students must bring an attitude of mutual respect to the tasks of Service Learning, and build
trust among themselves, as well as with educators and staff, and with those served (Ayers & Ray, 1995).
Of course, people can serve their communities at any age, and there are numerous pathways for serving,
with Service Learning only one such pathway. It could, however, become the most accessible pathway of all--if it
were to be made available as an option to every student in every grade and academic level throughout American
schooling, as integral both to K-12 and to higher education.
C. Examples of Service Learning
Service Learning can involve service in the broader community, in the student's own school or in another
Service Learning: A National Strategy
11
school. Either way, it is integrated into a curriculum with reflection. There are numerous curricular examples, as
noted, as well as numerous possible service activities (e.g., Lewis, 1991, 1995).
Tutoring. Ongoing problems in schools and communities can interfere with teachers' ability to gain and
keep students' attention, to move beyond discipline problems, and to provide kids with the one-to-one experience
most useful especially in teaching reading. One-to-one attention is needed in learning to read, and especially if a
child is not read to at home and does not read (or try to read) at home, this is needed elsewhere. Older students
can tutor younger ones as Service Learning tutors--in reading, in math, in computer literacy, or another subject
area. The special attention they receive can motivate children to participate more actively in their own learning,
often simply because they like being with an older student (Developmental Studies Center, 1996). It can also
invoke interest, effort, and persistence, as well as success, rewarding for the Service Learning student as well.
Service Learning students as tutors for younger children hold special promise because they can address
educational deficits and act as role-models for young children at the same time, showing that it is "cool" to know
things and to be academically successful (Raspberry, 1997a). Experience with older students as tutors may also
suggest to those tutored that it is "cool" to make a contribution to another person's life. The experience is clearly
mutual. Teaching is often the best way to learn, so tutors gain in this way as well. Tutoring in reading can
obviously be incorporated into English courses or a variety of other courses, while tutoring in computer literacy
can be part of science and computer science, and math tutoring part of arithmetic, algebra, or geometry (Stephens,
1995). Of course, tutoring can also be part of an "informal" curriculum coordinated by a community-based
organization. As with much Service Learning, it can take place either during the school day or in after-school
programs, a crucial gap for many students (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1992; Inlong, 1998),
and may take place on school grounds or elsewhere.
Given that there is an ongoing national literacy campaign involving reading tutors, another involving
computer and technology literacy, and a still another initiative in mathematics education, these initiatives can
provide a framework for involving large numbers of youth, trained as tutors in Service Learning, to participate in
addressing these pressing needs, while reaping benefits for their own education and development as well.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
12
Importantly, Service Learning in the form of tutoring, can be of special value in helping others to learn reading,
math, and computers because of the one-to-one attention often needed in learning each of these skills. In learning
to read, in particular, evidence suggests that a crucial element is being read to and reading aloud oneself with
another person who is a skilled reader (MacIver, Reuman, & Main, 1995)--who helps in pronouncing words, in
grasping meaning, and in practicing reading (National Research Council, 1998). Service Learning, informed by
this knowledge, thus offers a viable vehicle for these tutoring initiatives.
Peer-mentoring. Peer-mentoring or "buddy" programs, in which older kids are "buddies" to younger
ones, provide younger kids with an enhanced sense of connection with another person who can become significant
to them, who is available to talk to, learn from, and build a relationship with (Developmental Studies Center,
1996; National Helper's Network, 1995; Switzer, Simmons, Dew, Regalski, & Wang, 1995). Younger children
usually feel honored to spend time with older ones, making participation feel like a privilege, so long as the
attitude of the buddy is not condescending, and the buddy sees the younger student as being on equal footing.
Pairing younger kids with older ones can help younger kids feel less alienated, building a sense of belonging and
trust. Older kids, too, often feel honored to be asked to help out with someone younger, which can be empowering
and competence-building, and can have a pivotal impact on what older kids come to believe matters to them.
There can also be learning components to buddy systems, as in reading play or math play or other games, while
retaining the emphasis on connection and caring rather than on teaching. Peer-mentoring can be integrated into
social studies, civics, history, and psychology, or into a curriculum at a community-based organization. And to
the degree that peer-mentoring involves some tutoring, or vice versa, a dual purpose may be served by either.
Environmental projects. There are numerous examples of Service Learning activities that can take
place in the broader community. For example, environmental conservation projects may be undertaken in parks,
environmental work sites, animal-protection centers, or recycling centers; and neighborhoods and school grounds
can also be beautified with clean-ups, gardens planted, and so on. These activities can be integrated into general
science, biology, chemistry, or environmental science courses, or into a curriculum in a community-based
organization on principles of conservation, recycling, reducing environmental toxicity, and clean-up.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
13
Social service projects. A variety of social service activities can take place in the broader community, in
social service agencies or elsewhere, such as community centers, senior centers, day-care centers, day treatment
centers, food distribution centers for the homeless or homebound, and community policing centers. Again,
neighborhoods and school grounds can be beautified. These activities can be integrated into social studies, civics,
American history, psychology, or sociology courses, or into a variety of curricula in a community-based
organization, focusing for example on growing old or on homelessness.
D. What Does Service Learning Accomplish?
Service Learning offers a concrete strategy for youth development, conceived in terms of central elements
of both character and civic education. Even though the fields of Service Learning, character education, civic
education, and youth development are distinct, Service Learning facilitates character education (Institute for
Global Ethics, 1996; see also Berman et al., 1997; Boston, in press-1998) as well as civic education (Boston,
1997; Clark, 1993; Brandell & Hinck, 1997; Youniss & Yates, 1997), and should thus be a prominent part of
conversations in these fields, as in youth development, where increasingly it is (National Research Council, 1997).
Persuasive research findings have amassed on Service Learning from three major, national studies (Astin
& Sax, in press-1998; Eyler, Giles, & Braxton, 1997; Melchior, 1997; see also previous reviews Alt & Medrich,
1994; Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Scales & Blyth, 1997), which show, along with other studies, that Service
Learning is associated with significant pre-test/post-test increases in:
Civic Engagement
The Ethic of Service
Civic Attitudes
Social Connection
Acceptance of Diversity
Competence/Self-Esteem
Protection against Risky Behavior
Academic Achievement
Service Learning: A National Strategy
14
Research on the effects of Service Learning, of course, is not about testing individual student achievement
to determine course grades or other academic decisions. The research is done at the aggregate level and provides
evidence about what impact this teaching and learning strategy tends to have. As in any research, participants are
free to choose not to participate (with parental consent required for minors), and participants' responses are
confidential or anonymous. The point of reviewing research on the effects of Service Learning, as an educational
strategy, is to present the case that it facilitates youth development in ways widely held to be desirable while doing
no harm to student achievement. Reports of such findings have no implications for how achievement standards
should be set or for how student testing should proceed, nationally or locally. Hence, the argument that policies
should be supported that increase Service Learning opportunities for students should not be embroiled in debates
about national educational standards, a matter thoroughly enmeshed with national testing (Ravitch, 1995).
Of course, existing research is still fairly new and has its limitations. For example, even though Service
Learning clearly involves curriculum and reflection components, and a more sustained and concerted service
effort than a one-shot deal of a few hours (Danzig & Stanton, 1983), quality of implementation is not often
included as a measure in research designs. For obvious reasons, all research also makes use of self-report
instruments because such measures provide the most straightforward way of tapping effects of interest.
Continued research is needed, especially focused on well-implemented Service Learning, on experiments that
randomly assign students to Service Learning or to other pedagogical approaches within the same (or comparable)
courses, and on large-scale longitudinal studies. Nonetheless, the existing evidence is quantitative and impressive.
First, the nature of each of the three national, longitudinal studies is described in brief:
The Brandeis study (Melchior, 1997) focused on middle schools and high schools, and 17 sites chosen
because Service Learning at these sites was well-implemented. It had been in operation for more than one year,
was integrated into the curriculum, and was accompanied by reflection. The sites were 10 high schools and 7
middle schools representing urban, suburban, and rural communities, while 4 sites featured at-risk youth.
Approximately 1,000 Service Learning and comparison students completed both pre-test and post-test measures
(with most developed by the Search Institute in Minneapolis), and the service included more than 60 hours of
Service Learning: A National Strategy
15
service per semester. All effects reported held for male and female participants, for white and minority students,
and for at-risk, educationally disadvantaged, and economically disadvantaged students, as well as for their more
privileged counterparts. The study found no negative impacts and demonstrated positive impacts reflecting nearly
every one of the effects of Service Learning just noted, as indicated in the interim report (Melchior, 1997).
There are two national studies in higher education. The Vanderbilt study (Eyler et al., 1997) involved 20
colleges and universities and over 1500 students in a variety of geographical locations in both private and public
universities and also small, liberal arts colleges. All Service Learning was directly integrated into a course
curriculum in an Arts & Science course rather than being part of an internship, fieldwork, or professional school
course (although these forms were also studied). Service Learning students chose this option (n = 616) and were
compared on pre-test and post-test measures with control students who elected a different option. Effects emerged
for what the authors termed citizenship confidence, values, and skills, and perceptions of social justice, all
characterized below within the relevant section.
The other national study in higher education, the UCLA study (Astin & Sax, in press-1998; Sax et al.,
1996), involved 42 sites and over 2,300 students participating in some kind of community service (including over
470 explicitly identified by their institutions as participating in Service Learning), and a comparison sample of
over 1,100 nonparticipants. No procedure was used to gauge how well the Service Learning per se was
implemented, leaving students doing free-standing community service, rather than curriculum-integrated service,
in the Service Learning sample. Hence, this "noise" in the evaluation is compromising, but the advantage is the
large number of sites and students.
To provide a sense of the range of all the studies to be reviewed, the table presented next classifies them
by their type and scope. The studies are divided into national surveys, smaller scale surveys, and smaller-scale
experiments as well as according to the educational level of the students involved--middle/high school and higher
education. Certain unique advantages of the smaller-scale surveys and experiments account for their inclusion.
16
MIDDLE SCHOOL/HIGH SCHOOL
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
LARGE
Melchior (1997): "Brandeis Study"
Eyler, Giles, & Braxton (1997): "Vanderbilt Study"
SCALE
Follman & Muldoon (1997): Florida Public Schools
Astin & Sax (in press) and Sax et al. (1996): UCLA Study"
Philliber & Allen (1992): Teen Outreach
Sax & Alexander (1997)
SURVEYS
Rutter & Newmann (1989)
Conrad & Hedin (1982)
Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik (1982)
Youniss, McLellan, & Yates (1997)
SINGLE
Calabrese & Schumer (1986)
Myers-Lipton (1996)
OR
Cognetta & Sprinthall (1978)
Myers-Lipton (1996/1997)
Giles & Eyler (1994)
MULTIPLE
Yates & Youniss (1996)
COURSE
Batchelder & Root (1994)
SURVEYS
Cohen & Kinsey (1994)
Eyler & Halteman (1981)
SINGLE
Hamilton & Zeldin (1987)
Markus, Howard, & King (1993)
Service Learning: A National Strategy
OR
Switzer, Simmons, Dew, Regalski, & Wang (1995)
Boss (1994)
MULTIPLE
COURSE
EXPERIMENTS
Service Learning: A National Strategy
17
And now, the findings:
Engaging youth with their communities. Civic engagement is of the essence in youth development, as
discussed, and if Service Learning is a strategy for youth development, it should enhance civic engagement. It
conveys that each student is valued and has something to offer, and should counteract powerlessness (Kennedy,
1991). The oft quoted statement of Martin Luther King, "everyone is great because everyone can serve," is a call
to service as civic engagement (Schine & Halsted, 1997).
In the Brandeis study in middle schools and high schools, Service Learning students showed enhanced
civic efficacy or engagement in terms of their self-reports of community service leadership (Melchior, 1997).
Compared with students not participating, they showed pre-test/post-test increases in self-reported agreement with
items on this measure such as, "I believe that I personally can make a difference in my community," "I enjoy
doing something that will benefit others in the community," and "I am aware of needs in my community that I can
do something about." Thus, the study shows that Service Learning among middle and high schoolers is associated
with increased civic engagement. The strength of the study is its multi-site, national focus. Its weakness is that it
is correlational, meaning that the effects of self-selecting into Service Learning courses cannot be fully accounted
for or ruled out, thus requiring caution in drawing conclusions. On the other hand, for many student participants,
they had little explicit choice about participating because Service Learning was simply the process of teaching and
learning their teacher had chosen, a fact that mitigates self-selection problems to an extent, as does taking pre-
existing differences between groups into account in analyses.
The Vanderbilt study in higher education (Eyler et al., 1994) provides strong support for increased civic
efficacy. The study found significant pre-test/post-test increases among Service Learning students, relative to
control students, in ratings of their personal efficacy in influencing community issues, and ratings of the
community's capacity to solve its own problems. Relative to control students, they also showed significant
increases in their ratings of the value they placed on trying to influence policy, and in their ratings of their belief
that societal problems can be changed by public policy.
Similarly, the UCLA study in higher education (Sax et al., 1996) indicated significant results for civic
Service Learning: A National Strategy
18
engagement (Astin & Sax, in press-1998; Sax et al., 1996). Service Learning students, as compared with
nonparticipants, showed significant increases in their reports of commitment to influencing the political structure
of society and social values. They also reported more disagreement with the statement: "Realistically, an
individual can do little to change society," and reported enhanced leadership ability as well. Both higher
education studies again involved self-selection and thus pose interpretational challenges, even with pre-test
differences controlled statistically, because this does not rule out all potential causes. Still, the expanse of the
studies and their comparable findings make them compelling.
Rectifying self-selection problems, one of the few experimental studies in the field randomly assigned high
school students to Service Learning or not, via a placement in a local government office for one semester
(Hamilton & Zeldin, 1987). Random assignment allowed definitive conclusions about causal impact, and the
results indicated significant increases in their self-reported competence in doing political work, their self-reports
of respect for government, and their self-reported belief that government is responsive to people's needs.
Analyses controlled for a variety of pre-test differences that may have survived the random assignment, and the
data thus make it clear that increases in political efficacy did result from this Service Learning. Also, the students
permitted to ask questions of their sponsors during legislative sessions in the government settings in which they
were placed reported deriving more from their experience, suggesting a special role for being actively engaged in
the service experience. Although the "content" of the service in a government setting may in itself have changed
attitudes about government, the effects are impressive, and demonstrate enhanced civic engagement.
In another experimental study, this time in higher education (Markus, Howard, & King, 1993; see also
Alt & Medrich, 1994), undergraduates in a political science class were randomly assigned to a section of the
course in which they participated in 20 hours of community service or not, in one of a variety of settings. Results
showed that these students, relative to nonparticipating students in the same class, were more likely to report
crediting the course with increasing their sense of political efficacy and with leading them to believe they can
make a difference in the world. Random assignment again allows the causal conclusion to be drawn that Service
Learning produced the effect, and the numerous service options available to students in this study de-couples the
Service Learning: A National Strategy
19
effect of increased political efficacy from placement in a government setting.
A related study in higher education required a fieldwork placement as for all students, although all were
social-service majors and self-selected in this sense (Giles & Eyler, 1994). The results showed significant pre-
test/post-test increases in these students self-reported belief people can make a difference in society, that is, in
their civic or political efficacy. They also showed significantly higher ratings of the importance of influencing
politics and ratings of aspiring to become a community leader. Finally, they showed significant increases in
their self-reported belief that community involvement is important and that all people should get involved. The
study used no control group, nor sophisticated analyses; it did, however, require Service Learning, allowing
stronger conclusions in this sense, except for the social-service-major sample.
In a different kind of study, using a quasi-experimental design (Calabrese & Schumer, 1986), 9th graders
with behavioral problems were randomly assigned to a condition in which they participated in community service
for 10 weeks or not, and then if they did, were allowed to "decide" to continue the service for another 10 weeks
(or not). The results showed that students who continued their service showed significant decreases in their self-
reports of social alienation relative to nonparticipating students, who actually showed slight increases in social
alienation. The "choice factor" made the design quasi-experimental and less than ideal because continuing
students were this much more committed already. Still, the results are provocative.
A recent literature review examined a set of long-term, longitudinal studies to determine how service
involvement is related to civic participation later in life. Although not specific to Service Learning, the study
concluded that high school students who took part in community service (or school governance) were more likely
:
than nonparticipants to be engaged in community organizations and in voting 15 (or more) years later (Youniss,
McLellan, & Yates, 1997). Self-selection effects prevent firm conclusions, but this evidence makes it clear that
youth engagement does differentiate adults in terms of civic engagement, a provocative finding indeed.
Inspiring students to take responsibility and to work together in a self-disciplined way to find solutions to
social and environmental problems that they are able to identify, helps them to find their "voice" and to become
active in their own learning. When youth feel personally invested in this way, it allows them to identify with their
Service Learning: A National Strategy
20
experiences, internalize them (see Deci, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1986), and achieve positive outcomes in so doing.
Indeed, the greatest benefits accrue from Service Learning when a sense of connection with others is balanced
with support for individual autonomy (e.g., Allen et al., 1994), making each participant's "voice" crucial
(Kielsmeier, 1997; see also Chalk & Phillips, 1996; Pittman, 1991).
Developing the ethic of service. Service Learning also appears to provide a superb vehicle for
promoting the ethic of service (Coles, 1993). The ethic of contributing to the common good--one's own
community, the broader human community, the global environment--involves caring enough about everyone's
survival that it serves others across intergroup boundaries. It involves the ethic of caring about others (Noddings,
1988; see also Benard, 1995), and the basic human need for human connection (Andersen et al., 1997). It also
involves a commitment to service and volunteerism that is potentially lifelong (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; Melchior,
1997; Youniss et al, 1997).
The Brandeis study in middle and high schools showed that among Service Learning students over 90%
reported believing students should be encouraged to participate in community service (although not required),
and also believing that they had been able to be helpful in their communities (Melchior, 1997). These students
reported being 30% more likely to do volunteer work over 6 months, providing 2 to 6 times more volunteer
hours than nonparticipants (an average of 100 hours VS. 37.5 hours). Hence, participation in Service Learning
appears to encourage voluntary service. In addition, the measure of community service leadership, described
previously in discussing civic engagement, included an item that directly assessed the ethic of service, "I am
committed to community service both now and later in life. The item was not analyzed separately, but the
overall measure revealed a significant impact.
An early study in 27 school-based programs also suggested that Service Learning is associated with
increased reports of interest in volunteerism in the future (Conrad & Hedin, 1982). In addition, the evidence
already described showing that voluntary service in high school predicts actual community involvement 15 years
later (Youniss et al., 1997) suggests that such activities may well engender a service ethic. Although self-
selection is again a problem, the results do converge.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
21
The Vanderbilt study in higher education (Eyler et al., 1997) provides similar evidence. Analyses
controlling for pre-test measures clearly showed that Service Learning undergraduates were significantly more
likely than control students to report that citizens should volunteer in community service and even to report that
service should be a requirement in school. Relative to control students, they also reported placing increased
personal value on volunteering and also on having a career that involves helping others, covarying out pre-test
differences. Hence, although self-selection warrants caution, the data show increases in the ethic of service.
The UCLA study in higher education (Astin & Sax, in press-1998; Sax et al., 1996) also supports this
conclusion. At post-test, participating students showed significantly more reported commitment to helping others
in difficulty, to participating in community action programs, and to being involved in environmental clean-up
activities, while controlling pre-test differences.
In a small-scale study (without a control group; Giles & Eyler, 1994), college students engaged in service
in a fieldwork requirement for their social-service major and were significantly more likely at post-test than at pre-
test to report the intention to do volunteer work the following semester.
Importantly, this finding was replicated in a nationwide, long-term, longitudinal study of than 12,000
college freshmen beginning in 1985 (see Sax & Alexander, 1997), following up with them when they were seniors
in 1989, and again 5 years later in 1994. The results showed that community service participation as an
undergraduate strongly predicted reports of activism and volunteerism in the 5 years following graduation, even
when statistically controlling freshman-year predispositions toward service. Although self-selection can be
problematic even when statistically controlling pre-test indices, the weight of the evidence showing an enhanced
ethic of service is compelling.
An experimental study (Markus et al., 1993) in which college students were randomly assigned to Service
Learning or to a control condition, showed significant pre-test/post-test increases (relative to controls) in the value
students reported placing on pursuing a career that helps others, and on volunteering to help people in need.
It also showed significant increases in their reported belief that adults should give some time for good of their
community or country, and in their report of crediting their Service Learning course for strengthening their
Service Learning: A National Strategy
22
intention to contribute to charities and to serve others in need. The experimental design demonstrates
definitively that Service Learning can cause students to develop an ethic of service.
Enhancing civic attitudes. Socializing citizenship values is at the basis of civic education (McLeod,
Horowitz, & Evaland, 1995), and Service Learning appears to facilitate such values. Service Learning may foster
civic values in part because it relies heavily on active learning (Barnett, 1996; Finken, 1996; Morse, 1996; Tyler,
1990). It introduces students to a participatory form of education, in which they learn through experience (Clark,
1993; Gulati-Partee & Finger, 1996; Kendall & Associates, 1990; Kinsley & McPherson, 1995). Students guide
their own learning, work cooperatively with others, problem-solve, negotiate mutually acceptable solutions,
resolve conflicts peacefully, make joint decisions, and take action, in teamwork-all basic skills needed in
democratic affairs (Quigley, 1997; Tyack, 1997; Hart, 1989; MacLeod, Horowitz, & Evaland, 1995; see also
Center for Civic Education, 1994). Of course, a social action model of civic education does not provide the only
viable definition. But working together in cooperative efforts that are mutually defined by students is part of well-
implemented Service Learning and has clear relevance to civic education, even if democratic processes to not
appear to students to characterize the school at large. Such cooperative activity also happens to be part of
effective functioning in workplaces, and it is of value in this respect as well (on vocational Service Learning, see
Gomez, 1996; Silcox, 1995). Of central interest here, a core element of civic attitudes is social responsibility
(Banaszak, Hartoonian, Leming, 1997; Brandell & Hinck, 1997; Derringer & Kattef, 1997; Kielsmeier, 1997;
Kurtzburg & Fougnan, 1997; Youniss et al, 1997), and the data suggest this is facilitated by Service Learning.
The Brandeis study in middle and high schools (Melchior, 1997) clearly shows enhanced civic attitudes in
terms of a self-report measure of personal and social responsibility. The measure included a variety of items
involving helping other people in need, protecting the environment (e.g., recycling), and being aware of and active
in school, community, and state issues. Respondents indicated how responsible they felt--and also how everyone
should feel--to engage in relevant actions. Participating students showed positive, statistically significant pre-
test/post-test increases, relative to nonparticipants, in their reported perceptions of personal and social
responsibility. This same measure, originally developed and used in research on 27 school-based programs,
Service Learning: A National Strategy
23
yielded the same results in this earlier research (Conrad & Hedin, 1982). The authors of a recent literature
review--showing that service in high school continues 15 years into adulthood--have in fact interpreted this
evidence as suggesting that the experience promotes the construction of "civic identity,' a sense of a duty to take
part in civic affairs (Youniss et al., 1997). In another early study of 8 school-based community service initiatives
(Rutter & Newmann, 1989), the findings indicated that increases in civic responsibility do not always occur, but
when they do, the process of reflection tends to be key. Of course, self-selection effects again warrants caution.
In the Vanderbilt study in higher education (Eyler et al., 1997), the evidence similarly shows increased
civic attitudes and values. Students in Service Learning courses showed significant pre-test/post-test increases,
relative to nonparticipants, in their reported skills in political participation and in issue-identification, even
when controlling pre-test indices. These students also became more likely to report attributing social problems
to systemic factors.
The UCLA higher education study (Astin & Sax, in press-1998; Sax et al., 1996) yielded the same kinds
of findings. After serving, students were significantly more likely than nonparticipants to report changes during
college in their understanding of community problems and the nation's problems, in their ability to work
cooperatively with others, and in their skills in conflict resolution and in thinking critically. Thus, increases in
civic values have been quite clearly demonstrated, although self-selection effects again argue for caution.
In an experiment with college students (Markus et al., 1993), students randomly assigned to Service
Learning were significantly more likely than were control students to report crediting the course for heightening
their sense of social responsibility--e.g., their belief that helping those in need is one's social responsibility.
These students were also significantly more than control students to report having reconsidered their own values
and attitudes during the course, and acquired greater awareness of society's problems. In an experiment with
high school students (Hamilton & Zeldin, 1987), students assigned to Service Learning in a government office,
relative to controls, showed significantly higher reports of impact on their knowledge of local government
(although the explicit content of their placement must be noted). This solid experimental evidence thus
demonstrates that the experience can produce enhanced civic attitudes and civic knowledge.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
24
A quasi-experimental study assessed intensive Service Learning in a small sample of college students,
who did 6 hours of community service per week for two semesters over 2 years, integrated into 4 different
academic courses, and used international understanding as an index of civic knowledge (Myers-Lipton, 1996/7).
The results indicated significantly increased scores on a self-report measure of international understanding
among Service Learning students relative to controls (engaged in volunteerism but no course work or in no service
at all). The small sample and self-selection suggest caution, but there is again a clear association.
Cultivating a sense of social connection. The Brandeis study in middle and high schools (Melchior,
1997) showed that, among Service Learning students, 75% reported having developed at least one positive
personal relationship in their experience, generally with another student or with someone served. Moreover, 82%
of the participating community organizations reported that community members developed more positive
attitudes toward youth based on their work. A smaller study involving 8 school-based service initiatives showed
significant increases among participating students in their ratings of the availability of opportunities for
productive relationships and for feeling appreciated by others, such as in being able to earn a child's trust
(Rutter & Newmann, 1989). Significantly higher ratings of perceived social competence were also found.
Overall, these data clearly highlight relationship building in Service Learning (Scales & Blyth, 1997). In fact,
when students are asked about what was important to them in their Service Learning experiences, they often cited
particular relationships with people with whom they served in identifying what had the most impact on them
(Conrad & Hedin, 1989).
Importantly, the Vanderbilt study in higher education (Eyler et al., 1994) explicitly demonstrated that
Service Learning students scored significant higher at post-test than at pre-test, relative to students not
participating, in their self-reports of having a sense of community connectedness, of their openness to multiple
points of view, and of their belief that resolving social injustice in society should be a priority (on a social
justice measure), controlling for pre-test perceptions. They also showed significantly increased scores on a self-
report measure of perspective-taking, that is, in the ability to place the self in the position of the other, as
compared with control students. The UCLA study also showed significant increases in reported social self-
Service Learning: A National Strategy
25
confidence (Sax et al., 1996). And, in an experiment in higher education (Markus et al., 1993), students
randomly assigned to Service Learning, rather than to another pedagogy, were significantly more likely to report
crediting the class for increasing their orientation toward others and away from the self. Given random
assignment in the latter study, Service Learning can clearly produce enhanced social connectedness.
Indications are that perspective-taking goes hand in hand with empathy (e.g., Batson, 1991; Berman et
al., 1997). Hence, the increases in perspective-taking in the Vanderbilt study, and related findings, may be
suggestive of increased empathy based on Service Learning as well. And because empathy has been shown to
mediate prosocial behavior (Batson, 1991), the results are even suggestive of increased prosocial behavior,
although such claims exceed the present data. In one supportive study, however, college students in Service
Learning courses were asked to write reflections--in response to hypothetical problems--which were then
classified, using content-coding, on a variety of dimensions, and the results showed significant pre-test/post-test
increases in empathic reasoning scores (Batchelder & Root, 1994). This finding corroborates perspective-taking
evidence from the Vanderbilt study, among others, and draws the empathy link in Service Learning. In this study,
students' written reflections also showed more prosocial decision-making, again based on content-coding. With
all due caution as regards self-selection and the lack of a control group, this study provides support for an
association between Service Learning and enhanced perspective-taking, empathy, and prosocial values.
Related evidence exists from a study of high school students participating in a course on community
justice and working in a soup kitchen (as a requirement), who were also asked to write reflections, this time about
their experiences. The essays were coded for the extent to which students linked their specific experiences to
something beyond that reality (Yates & Youniss, 1996a). Although there was no control group, nearly 45% of
students' first written reflections dealt with those served as individuals rather than as stereotypes and referred
to seeing themselves (and all people) as similar to those served. In addition, pre-test/post-test changes indicated
that students' written reflections dealt increasingly with awareness of injustice in the other's situation and the
need for social change, leading the authors to conclude that the service involved acquiring a more nuanced (in the
authors' terms, transcendent) interpretation of life events and circumstances, and an expanded social identity (or
Service Learning: A National Strategy
26
"civic" identity) including these others. Indeed, one of the experiments in higher education (Markus et al., 1993)
showed pre-test/post-test increases in participants, relative to controls, in reports of the value they placed on
working toward equal opportunity, which provides experimental evidence that this kind of caring about others is
enhanced by Service Learning participation.
In terms of perspective-taking, other research has suggested that children with better perspective-taking
skills are more likely to have close friendships, as compared with those without such skills (McGuire & Weirs,
1982), implying that caring relationships among young people involve perspective-taking, which may be true in
Service Learning as well, a matter worthy of continued research. Indeed, a small study of social-service majors in
college--in a required Service Learning course (Giles & Eyler, 1994)--showed that nearly all participants, on an
open-ended measure, reported a personal involvement with a particular person (or various people) they served.
A related, quasi-experimental study, in which undergraduates were randomly assigned to Service Learning and
then allowed to choose whether or not to continue it for a longer period (Calabrese & Schumer, 1986), also
showed that longer-serving students were more likely to report having formed new relationships with other
students in the process.
This research highlights relationships developed in Service Learning. It is important because research on
character education in schools has shown that when the relationships youth experience in school lead them to
perceive the school as a caring community--in which they feel cared for and appreciated--this mediates the
increases in prosocial values that may emerge based on character-education interventions (Schaps, Battistich, &
Solomon, 1997; Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1992). This evidence shows the crucial role
schools can play in offering caring environments for youth (see also Berman et al., 1997; Dieringer & Kattef,
1997; Noddings, 1987, 1988), and supports evidence from large-scale longitudinal research showing that
adolescents' sense of connectedness within school (and community and family) serves as a significant protective
factor against risky behavior and emotional distress (Resnick et al., 1997).
The bulk of this research implies an increased collective identity among youth in Service Learning.
Interestingly, basic research in social psychology has shown that forming broader, superordinate, social identities
Service Learning: A National Strategy
27
that include "the other" reduces intergroup bias and facilitates a belief in social justice and the making of just
decisions (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989;
Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990; Huo et al, 1996). At its best, Service Learning fosters a
caring community and new relationships (e.g., Calabrese & Schumer, 1986; Switzer et al., 1995)--with teachers,
service professionals, community members, and other students. It offers youth new models of self-other
relationships, likely to be central to character education (Berman et al., 1997; see also Andersen et al., 1997). It
also makes use of some of the most powerful learning devices known to the behavioral sciences--learning by
observation and learning by doing (Bandura, 1977, 1986), enabling it to be what teacher John Ruggeberg refers to
as "character education with feet."
In this vein, an experiment in higher education addressing character education in terms of moral reasoning
randomly assigned students to a Service Learning section of a philosophy course on ethics or to a different section
taught by the same professor (Boss, 1994). The results showed significantly larger pre-test/post-test advances in
their level of moral reasoning among participating students relative to comparison students. Among Service
Learning students at post-test, 51% showed post-conventional, principled reasoning, while the figure was 14%
at pre-test for everyone. At post-test, the control group remained unchanged at 13%. This measure of post-
conventional, principled reasoning taps both social justice and "caring" and is clearly prosocial. Change in moral
reasoning among Service Learning students was significantly related to their class participation (reflection),
whereas no such relationship emerged among control students. Random assignment in this design enables the
definitive conclusion that Service Learning can produce advances in moral reasoning.
Fostering acceptance of diversity. A great deal of research on intergroup relations, prejudice, and
stereotyping in social psychology shows that engaging in shared activities toward mutually valued ends breaks
down group barriers, promoting shared understanding across racial, ethnic, and other divides (e.g., Brewer &
Miller, 1984; Hewstone, 1986; Pettigrew, in press-1998). Research on how to diminish prejudice also indicates
that mere "contact" between groups is not sufficient to break down barriers. However, working together on equal
footing, cooperatively, toward mutually valued goals, can build respect and trust, as well as friendships and
Service Learning: A National Strategy
28
amicable work relationships (Gaertner et al., 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994).
Working together cooperatively with people of differing faiths, ethnic ties or racial backgrounds can
break down barriers (Slavin & Madden, 1979; see Hawley & Jackson, 1995), although this is not always easy
because people of different backgrounds may have to work to identify shared values. But there are things all
people have in common (minimally, their humanity), and this is especially possible to see in a given community or
locale, and even in neighboring communities. Such themes can thus be identified, while differences in perspective
are also aired with civility and respect. The reflection component of Service Learning, in particular, offers a
prime opportunity for breaking down barriers in this way between students who might otherwise not have or use
opportunities to share experiences with each other, and to experience commonalities as well as differences
(Roberts-Weah, 1995; Sausjord, 1993; Toole & Toole, 1997). It can thus foster reductions in intergroup tensions
(Sausjord, 1993; for related strategies, see Conard, 1988; Gabelko, 1988; Haugsby, 1991; Lynch, 1987; Pate,
1988; Reiken, 1952; Singh, 1991; Slavin & Madden, 1979; Sonnenschein, 1988; Sowell, 1990; Tatum, 1992).
The Brandeis study in middle schools and high schools has, in fact, demonstrated significant pre-test/post-
test increases among participating students, relative to controls, in scores on a self-report measure of acceptance
of diversity (Melchior, 1997). These students became less likely to agree with statements such as, "It bothers me
if a teacher or classmate is different from me" and "I would rather not live near people of different races or ethnic
groups." They also became more likely to agree with statements like, "I prefer to spend time with different types
of people, not just people like me," and "I can learn a lot from people with backgrounds and experiences that are
different from mine." Service Learning is thus significantly associated with increased acceptance of diversity,
even though the oft-noted self-selection problem must be acknowledged.
The Vanderbilt study of higher education (Eyler et al., 1997) also indicated significant increases in self
reports of tolerance for others, as part of a citizenship-skills assessment, controlling statistically for pretest
differences. Corroborating this, the UCLA study in higher education (Astin & Sax, in press-1998; Sax et al.,
1996) showed that participating students, relative to controls, reported having changed more in college in their
knowledge and acceptance of different races/cultures. In addition, students generally (and inexplicably) showed
Service Learning: A National Strategy
29
pre-test/post-test decreases in commitment to promoting racial understanding. Participating students, however,
showed significantly smaller decreases on this measure.
A small-scale study of intensive Service Learning, integrating it into one course per semester for 2 years
(for a total of 4 courses) (Myers-Lipton, 1996), showed significant pre-test/post-test declines in self-reported
prejudice on the widely used Modern Racism Scale relative to control students. Again, an increase in prejudice
scores was observed among students in two comparison groups. In conjunction with the UCLA study, these data
suggest that higher education may not typically lead to reductions in racial prejudice (see Jackman & Muha,
1984), even though it does when pursued within a Service Learning framework. A smaller study involving a
single college course supports this supposition by showing that among the participating students, 75% reported
changing their views positively about the individuals they served, and that many had negative preconceptions at
the outset (Giles & Eyler, 1994). In fact, significant pre-test/post-test improvements occurred among
participating students in reported attitudes toward those served. The study also indicated that these students
reported being less likely to blame those served for misfortunes and reported being more likely to attribute the
misfortunes of those served to circumstance. Although there was no control group in this study, the findings are
quite provocative.
Importantly, an experiment that randomly assigned college students to Service Learning (or to an
alternative pedagogy in the same class) showed that they were significantly more likely to report crediting this
class with heightening their tolerance for diversity than were students assigned to the control condition (Markus
et al., 1993). With self-selection overcome by random assignment, this study provides solid evidence that Service
Learning can produce increased acceptance of diversity. Consistent with this, participating students also showed
pre-test/post-test decreases in their reports of making snap negative judgments about homeless people (relative
to controls), an example of increased understanding/tolerance across socioeconomic divides.
Of course, it may be possible to foster a wider collective spirit, as in service (Stanton, 1990), through
other activities, such as theater or school band (e.g., Benning, 1997), or sports when characterized by fair play
(Gough, 1997; see also Raspberry, 1997b), or any number of cooperative, team-based activities. Such activities
Service Learning: A National Strategy
30
may foster acceptance of diversity especially when there is diversity among participants, based on the process of
working with others cooperatively toward shared goals, a factor known to build bonds (Slavin & Madden, 1979),
promote a common in-group identity (Gaertner, 1989, 1990, 1994) and mutual interdependence (Brewer, 1979,
1996; Fiske & Ruscher, 1993; Huo et al., 1996). The fact that Service Learning appears to foster a greater sense
of community is relevant here as well (Eyler et al., 1997). For schools or communities that do not have this
advantage, diversity in Service Learning can be achieved by partnering with another school or community-based
organization that enables diversity in those doing the serving, and where feasible, in those served.
Diversity in work and reflection groups can have positive consequences under the right conditions for
other reasons as well that are worth recognizing. It can empower minority youth, by beginning to break the
presumed "success taboo" among some African American youth (especially males; Herbert, 1997). Recent
evidence in social psychology relevant to this suggests that disadvantaged, stigmatized groups unwittingly
internalize stereotyped conceptions of themselves in ways that have an impact on academic performance. They
then dis-identify with activities in which they are alleged to be inferior (e.g., academics among African Americans,
math among females), choosing not to invest their energies in these areas (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
The process is not intractable because intergroup differences can be minimized in diverse work groups in which
stereotyped individuals equal in talent to "advantaged" others can see "advantaged" others also having to work
hard to achieve (Steele, 1992), which then eradicates performance differences. For youth who have dis-identified
with school, Service Learning can make it relevant, by helping them to feel they have something to offer in their
communities, and by putting them on equal footing with "advantaged" others as well.
On the other hand, studies of Service Learning that show increased acceptance of diversity did not
necessarily involve such diversity in participants or in those served, and increased acceptance of diversity thus
occurred even without such diversity (Melchior, 1997). This implies that the effect may emerge primarily on the
basis of engaging in service, contributing to the common good cooperatively and reflecting on it, a process that
may be sufficient to remind students of the common humanity of others and to show that everyone has something
to offer. Of course, teachers and staff involved in such courses may make a point of enabling youth to discuss
Service Learning: A National Strategy
31
cultural diversity openly, to honor, respect, and celebrate it, and special benefits may accrue from this as well
(Ayers & Ray, 1995; Roberts-Weah, 1995; Sausjord, 1993; Toole & Toole, 1997; see also Tatum, 1992).
Developing competence/self-esteem and protecting against risky behaviors. Using standard measures
of self-esteem and self-confidence, studies have suggested that participation in Service Learning is associated with
greater increases in scores on self-report self-esteem measures (Conrad & Hedin, 1982; King, Walder, & Pavey,
1970; Newmann & Rutter, 1983; Tierney & Branch, 1992). Increased reports of self-confidence have also been
observed based on service participation in studies of tutors for young children (Cognetta & Sprinthall, 1978;
Conrad & Hedin, 1989; Hedin, 1987; although see Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982).
Supporting this proposition, at least in a limited way, an experimental study (directed by the National
Center for Service Learning) randomly assigned junior high school students to Service Learning in which they
served as "helpers" for the entire school year or to an alternative condition. Participating students served as
tutors, companions at a senior center, or community helpers at a community organization. The results indicated
that participating boys showed pre-test/post-test improvements on measures of both self-esteem and depressive
affect, along with significant reductions in problem behavior in school, such as skipping class, being sent to the
principal's office or being suspended. The authors attribute the lack of findings for girls to the high baseline
consistency of altruism with girls' gender roles, suggesting that nurturing and helping among boys is not part of
their gender socialization, and may thus have a profound (and more profound) impact on their self-esteem.
Research is needed to determine if and when girls' self-esteem may benefit from such helper programs.
Importantly, self-esteem is best conceptualized in terms of various kinds of competence, such as
perceptions of self-efficacy in a domain (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Mischel, 1973). In this sense, a number of
different types of competence are associated with Service Learning. As indicated, Service Learning is associated
with community leadership abilities in middle and high school (Melchior, 1997), and with competence in doing
political work in high school (Hamilton & Zeldin, 1987). It is also associated with personal efficacy in
community influence (Eyler et al., 1997) and with political efficacy (Markus et al., 1993) in college.
These data are important because interventions that promote competence among young people have been
Service Learning: A National Strategy
32
shown to prevent risky behaviors (Weissberg, Caplan, & Harwood, 1991), defined as drug abuse, unwanted
pregnancies, AIDS, delinquency, and school dropout. Of course, not all interventions designed for primary
prevention of psychosocial problems among youth are of sufficiently high quality to build competence (Rutter,
1982). Moreover, interventions focusing only on one age range, such as early childhood, will not suffice, because
ongoing educational experiences promoting social/behavioral development and competencies are needed
throughout development (Zigler & Berman, 1983).
In terms of protecting against risky behavior through Service Learning, the Brandeis study in middle and
high schools (Melchior, 1997) collected self-reports of various risky behaviors and obtained some marginally
significant findings. Although the effects only approached statistical significance, the study did show a slight
decline in teenage pregnancy among participating students relative to controls, as well as a slight decline in
delinquent behaviors. These findings suggest that prevention of risky behavior may occur in Service Learning,
but the failure of the effect to reach conventional levels of statistical significance suggests that on its own it may
not be sufficient to protect against such risky behavior. Instead, it may contribute to such protection primarily
when included in programs that target relevant behaviors and competencies.
Importantly, rapidly amassing findings support this specific conclusion, based on the Teen Outreach
Program (sponsored by the Association of Junior Leagues International). Teen Outreach integrates Service
Learning into a curriculum explicitly directed toward reduction of risky behavior among students in middle school
and high school. The program involves young people in volunteer service in their communities, typically at least
4 hours per week, based on a curriculum dealing with human growth, family conflict, and other relevant issues,
with active discussion (reflection) invited and encouraged. Seven years of data involving numerous sites and over
6,000 participating and comparison students have shown pre-test/post-test declines among participants, relative to
nonparticipants, in teenage pregnancy, school failure, and dropout rates (Philliber & Allen, 1992). Although
self-selection into this program poses the usual interpretational difficulties, research controlled statistically for
known differences between groups. Moreover, other research has compared sites using random assignment with
those allowing self-selection and obtained similar results for both, providing solid evidence that Teen Outreach
Service Learning: A National Strategy
33
does protect against these behaviors (Philliber & Allen, 1993). Indeed, the community service component of the
program has been shown to account for statistically significant variance in protecting against these behaviors
(Allen, Kuperminc, Philliber, & Herre, 1994; Allen, Philliber, & Hoggson, 1990), so it is not simply the targeted
curriculum, but the fact that community service is integrated into it that makes the difference.
Research focusing on site factors that contribute to this program's success has yielded provocative,
important findings (Allen at al., 1994). That is, considerably more success in protecting against risky behaviors
was found at sites that students perceived as promoting their own autonomy and also their sense of connection
with others (that is, with peers and facilitators). Although this effect was limited to middle school sites, it is
impressive because all sites focused on enhancing both autonomy and relatedness to some extent, "by placing
students in a help-giving (as opposed to help-receiving) role" (Allen et al., 1994, p. 614). The special increment
in positive outcomes at middle school sites striking this balance especially well is remarkable given the "restricted
range" of this variable, which makes statistically significant effects harder to obtain. Such a balance between
autonomy and connectedness has been shown to be crucial in reducing school drop out in other kinds of studies
(Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997), presumably because it facilitates internalization ( Deci, 1995; Deci & Ryan,
1986). Indeed, Teen Outreach was a recent award recipient from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Returning to the Brandeis study (Melchior, 1997), an earlier version of it conducted before the one
reported here (in 1993-94 versus 1994-95) focused on 13 school-based and community-based sites and used fewer
exclusion criteria. The results showed significant pre-test/post-test increases among participating students,
relative to controls, in school attendance both in middle school and in high school. Although it is not clear why
no such effect emerged in the subsequent Brandeis study, there is once again some evidence that improvement in
problem behaviors may be associated with Service Learning. In addition, a study in public schools in Florida
(Follman & Muldoon, 1997) showed that 62% of Service Learning sites showed an increase in attendance (with
an average increase of 45%), while 20% showed no change and 20% showed decreases in attendance, a pattern
that was similar at sites including at-risk youth. Moreover, 68% of Service Learning sites reported a decrease in
discipline referrals (and an average decrease of 68%), with 21% showing no change and 11% reporting an
Service Learning: A National Strategy
34
increase, a pattern more impressive at sites including at-risk youth. Although inconsistencies in reporting from all
sites, the absence of a control group, and no reported tests for statistical significance, limit the conclusions
possible, the data suggest that Service Learning is associated with decreases in school-related problem behaviors.
As indicated, evidence shows that Service Learning participation is associated with enhanced community
connectedness among college students (Eyler et al., 1997, and this is suggestive that it may protect against risky
behaviors (Blum & Rinehart, 1997). It has been persuasively argued that "what seems to matter most for
adolescent health is that schools foster an atmosphere in which students feel fairly treated, close to others, and a
part of the school. Our adolescent children, both younger and older, stand a better chance of being protected from
health risks when they feel connected to their school" (Blum & Rinehart, 1997, p. 24). Research on social
networks in school-age children shows that diverse networks (in race, gender, and age) in which large numbers of
people provide physical assistance are associated with child adjustment (Sampson et al., 1997). These facts make
Service Learning all the more promising. It targets multiple problem behaviors in a comprehensive way, as well
as multiple positive youth outcomes, and thus may have more potential to endure in an educational setting than a
discrete or categorical intervention targeting a single behavior (Weissberg et al., 1991, p. 837).
Overall, the relative lack of statistically significant effects indicating that Service Learning protects
against risky youth behaviors, with the powerful exception of Teen Outreach, suggests that caution is warranted
in making broad claims about Service Learning and risky behavior. On the other hand, when its curriculum-basis
targets these behaviors, as Teen Outreach does, the evidence is solid.
Improving/supporting academic achievement. The Brandeis study in middle and high schools has
shown that Service Learning is associated with significant improvements in academic achievement (Melchior,
1997). Participating students showed significant improvements in grade point average (GPA) across their core
courses (math, science, English, social studies) relative to nonparticipants. They also showed significant pre-
test/post-test increases, relative to control students, in their scores on a self-report measure of school
engagement, including how happy they feel at school, how much they pay attention in class, and how hard they
work in school, as well as on a self-report measure of their educational aspiration (wanting to go to a four-year
Service Learning: A National Strategy
35
college). In addition, among participating students 87% reported having learned a new skill that they believed
would be valuable in the future, and 75% reported having learned more in the Service Learning class than in
their typical classes. Although self-selection issues remain, a clear association with academic achievement exists.
Using tutoring in K-12 education as a precise example of Service Learning, a meta-analytic review of
studies on the effects of tutoring--on the tutors themselves--showed modest learning gains in 33 of 38 studies,
based on the tutor's own exams in the subject matter (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982). Tutoring clearly enabled
tutors to gain a better understanding of their subject, and oftentimes, to develop more positive attitudes about it as
well. The effects were stronger in math than in reading, and when tutors dealt with younger students rather than
peers, but the research is clear: tutors do show academic gains. Of course, those tutored also performed better on
exams in 45 of 52 studies assessing this. (For related reviews, see Conrad & Hedin, 1989; Alt & Medrich, 1994).
In higher education, the Vanderbilt study did not include academic indices, but the UCLA study did
(Astin & Sax, in press-1998; Sax et al., 1996), and its findings are similar to those of the Brandeis study,
although the authors take pains to acknowledge difficulties in data interpretation due to a lack of pre-test
measures on many indices. Nonetheless, they report significantly higher GPA among participating students than
among other students, higher ratings of degree of faculty contact, ratings of aspirations for an advanced degree,
and overall scores on a self-report measure of academic self-concept. In addition, in a small-scale study in
higher education among students in a mass communication course (Cohen & Kinsey, 1994), participating students
showed significantly higher ratings of how much they learned about mass communication than did control
students in the same course, and significantly higher ratings of the degree to which they saw class material as
relevant to the real world. Hence, there is an association with academic achievement in higher education, even
though self-selection remains an issue.
An experiment on with college students, however, able to rule out self-selection factors, showed clear
academic gains for students assigned to Service Learning rather than to a control condition, but only when tested
on specific facts concerning their placement as related to their curriculum (Hamilton & Zeldin, 1987). This
finding highlights the importance of assessing knowledge relevant to service activities. A study involving a
Service Learning: A National Strategy
36
legislative internship also showed no greater knowledge as a whole among participating college students, but
showed a more nuanced understanding of basic issues (Eyler & Halteman, 1981).
In another experiment in higher education (Markus et al., 1993), again able to rule out self-selection
factors through the use of random selection, did in fact show significantly higher grades in the course (in the B+
to A- range) among participating students than among students assigned to a control condition (in the B to B+
range). These students also showed significantly higher ratings in their self-reported belief that they were able to
apply what they learned in the course to new situations and in their reports that they had performed up to their
potential in the course. The experimental design makes it possible to conclude definitively that Service Learning
can produce enhanced academic achievement among college students.
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that education reform focused solely on increasing GPA and achievement
test scores cannot address some of the most pressing challenges facing youth today. Academic achievement
cannot viably be considered the only index of effective education. Advocacy of Service Learning is justified on
grounds that extend beyond increases in academic achievement, because even though it clearly supports and may
often improve achievement, it is an integrative strategy for achieving multiple, valued ends in youth development,
including basic elements of civic education, and character education. Simply put, it is a valuable educational
tool that makes academic curricula more relevant and engaging, introduces no achievement decrement, and
supports growth and development in ways that prepare youth for the 21st century (Rifkin, 1997). The available
findings are provocative and compelling, and they warrant public policy action now in the context of private-
public partnerships that promote Service Learning.
E. Voluntary or Required?
Voluntary Service Learning opportunities for students. Research strongly suggests the importance of
student autonomy in internalizing values and attitudes based on experience (Deci, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1986; see
also Allen et al., 1994; Vallerand et al., 1997). Hence, Service Learning is best promoted as an option and
opportunity for students, by inspiring students to choose to participate because attractive opportunities are
available. Making such opportunities widely accessible--for all students at every academic level in every
Service Learning: A National Strategy
37
educational institution in the country so that all students can participate throughout development in the context of
their education--would be a pervasive change with important, desired consequences.
When Service Learning is voluntary, the onus is on the educational institution and teacher to make the
various options exciting enough that students will choose to take part, even students who might not tend to be so
inclined, but find the possible activities done with other students compelling. Voluntary Service Learning may
make it easier for institutions and educators to fulfill the crucial goal of inviting students to take part in this way.
Individual educators and staff provide structure, inspiration, curriculum integration, and reflection opportunities,
but it is the students' own motivations that must be engaged, and especially interested educators and staff are best
equipped to do this. Hence, there are cogent arguments for making participation voluntary (Wildavsky, 1991; see
also Cloud, 1997), although little research exists on differences between voluntary and required Service Learning,
and the research that does exist shows few differences (e.g., Allen et al., 1994). Nonetheless, institutionalizing
Service Learning--by making available the necessary preparation time and training opportunities for educators
and staff, as well as the facilities, vehicles, and so on--is a challenge that may be more feasible when voluntary.
Ideally, educational institutions would make a campus-wide commitment to Service Learning,
incorporating it into their overall mission statement, identifying and training interested teachers and professors at
each educational level and across fields (subject areas), and thus offering multiple opportunities to students that
are viable and appealing. This is pressing enough as a policy challenge without mandatory Service Learning.
The crucial task is to do Service Learning well and in widely expanded ways throughout the nation.
The best way to implement Service Learning is by promoting it to students and inspiring them to want to
participate. It is a teaching and learning strategy that asks students to be active and engaged in shaping the
service they do--in the context of a curriculum--with a "voice" that is heard. Ideally, student autonomy is
balanced with connectedness with others, as this is a determining factor in the effectiveness of school interventions
for various youth outcomes (Allen et al., 1994; Kuperminc, Allen, & Arthur, 1996; Vallerand et al., 1997 and
may well override the mandatory/voluntary distinction.
In addition, it is important to emphasize that the voluntary participation of those served is also important
Service Learning: A National Strategy
38
in Service Learning. Those served must be free to indicate whether or not they want the service and what, if any,
service they believe they might need. If participating students invite those served to describe their needs and
resources (and how they might want to partake or contribute), a sense of collaboration can be established. If
those served do not value the service, it is not "service." In some cases, of course, a neighborhood that students
themselves live in is being improved, in which case the students are the community served. In any event, no one in
Service Learning should feel coerced--either those served or those doing the serving.
Of course, beyond the voluntary/mandatory distinction, there are many venues, such as elementary school
classrooms or particular required courses in any educational institution, in which the teacher/professor uses
Service Learning as a tool for teaching and learning (given the academic freedom to do so). In such cases, Service
Learning may be voluntary in the educational institution, but required in the classroom. There is no reason to
believe this to be problematic, and good reason to believe it can have beneficial outcomes.
Mandating Service Learning for all students. Debates are ongoing, of course, about Service Learning
requirements (e.g., Klie & Steele, 1990; Levison, 1990). When Service Learning is imposed as a mandate, for
example, by instituting a graduation requirement of a certain number of community service hours, Service
Learning may often be done superbly well--in the sense of a curriculum integration, opportunities for reflection,
and support for student autonomy and connectedness. Mandatory Service Learning also has the unparalleled
advantage of reaching all students, and thus of having a major transformative impact (Barber, 1991, 1992).
Indeed, it has been argued that mandatory Service Learning may have its greatest impact on youth least inclined to
participate. A strong case can thus be made for mandatory Service Learning when well-implemented, because
civic education, it can be argued, is as necessary as reading, writing, and mathematics in preparing youth to
participate in democracy (Barber, 1992). It is a pedagogy that empowers individuals to take responsibility and to
work together in ways that make them better able to protect their own liberties, as a lesson in citizenship.
On the other hand, the bare-bones criteria for Service Learning often do not come close to being met when
a mere requirement for community service hours for graduation is instituted, even when it is termed "Service
Learning" (Cloud, 1997). Little commitment within the institution or among educators to ensure a curriculum
Service Learning: A National Strategy
39
integration and reflection opportunities renders the educational value of service requirements questionable,
because they are not Service Learning. In such cases, there may also be limited guidance available to students as
to the meaning of their service and few (if any) options for fulfilling the service requirement. Hence, if an
institution-wide Service Learning requirement is to be effective in student learning and development, it must
involve a thoughtful curriculum and meaningful reflection opportunities, and must invite student participation.
A terminology problem may also be relevant to how students and parents respond to prospective Service
Learning experiences. The term "community service," especially "mandated community service," is often seen as
pejorative and punitive because the criminal justice system so routinely uses it in sentencing convicted criminals.
Sentences of "mandated community service" (which alternatively could be termed mandated "reparations")
inadvertently equate community service with "punishment" in the public eye. Hence, public affairs efforts to
promote and implement Service Learning in K-12 and higher education--whether mandatory or voluntary--must
seek to resolve this confusion and lift the stigma.
Overall, Service Learning requirements are best implemented by offering valuable, meaningful service
options, and Service Learning courses of sufficient variety to match varied student interests. In this way, a
Service Learning requirement can conceivably leave students with enough of a sense of freedom that they choose
their service, internalize their actions, and thus come to care about making a difference (e.g., Bierma, 1998;
Hines, 1997). Of course, when Service Learning is an institutional requirement, it may be a lot to ask that all
students have such high quality experiences, but this should be the aim. Required or voluntary, poorly
implemented Service Learning is not likely to be effective. And even if well-implemented, a potential downside of
mandatory Service Learning should be carefully guarded against--that some students still feel "forced" to
participate, and show their displeasure enough to taint the experience for other students, or in the worst case,
unwittingly even harm those served in some way (e.g., young children, nursing home residents, the homeless).
To guard against any student (or parent) feeling coerced about a Service Learning requirement, students
should, of course, be permitted to opt out of a requirement for an alternative assignment (in consultation with his
or her parents and teacher). Well-implement Service Learning, however, actively involves students in efforts to
Service Learning: A National Strategy
40
define community needs and engages them in active decision-making relevant to service within their curriculum.
Thus, it not likely to evoke an outcry against "government-coerced servitude" or other unwanted interference in
students' lives. When well-implemented, then, the opt-out possibility in a Service Learning requirement, should
rarely be chosen, even though it should be available.
In sum, students in K-12 and higher education should be offered the opportunity to participate in Service-
Learning throughout their education. The aim of this proposal is to make Service Learning available in every
grade or educational level within every K-12 school and institution of higher education in the country. To make
Service-Learning an integral part of the curriculum, available as an option, much work needs to be done. The
support of school districts and principals, deans and presidents, must be solicited, so that they are sufficiently
motivated to do their own solicitation of participation from interested teachers, professors, and staff who can then
inspire students to take part. Service Learning emphasizes real-world, hands-on learning that is interesting,
challenging, and fun, and when it is presented as such, students want to participate.
F. National Campaign to Promote Service Learning
The decision to adopt Service Learning clearly must be made locally. Nonetheless, a national campaign
is needed to inspire superintendents, principals/deans, teachers/professors, administrators, and staff to adopt it as
part of the overall process of teaching and learning at their institution. A coordinated promotion nationally and
regionally is thus needed (including at the grassroots level, Kincely, 1996), along with targeted funding in private-
public partnerships (e.g., Sigmon, 1996), especially to enable schools to have equity across socioeconomic
divides. Increased funding is clearly needed for such a promotion in K-12 and higher education, so that the
qualities and assets of Service Learning become well known. Widespread understanding of the practices of
Service Learning and its advantages would both begin an important national conversation on service in education
and increase its prevalence--if coupled with increased technical assistance for teachers, professors, and staff. As
indicated, distributing definitional guidelines widely does not necessitate entering the national standards debate on
this new topic because Service Learning is not linked with national testing. Definitional guidelines should be
distributed to schools and school districts, colleges and universities, and even directly to teachers and professors.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
41
In addition, poorer school districts face many pressing challenges that may make Service Learning seem less of a
priority, in spite of its value for a variety of outcomes among at-risk students, including academic outcomes.
Hence, it must be promoted widely across socioeconomic and other divides, along with increasing the seed funding
available to cover the costs of training and technical assistance for professional development for teachers and
staff. Such training is usually offered on a fee-for-service basis and is thus less available to poor schools districts.
Service Learning brings students together to work toward shared aims and empowers them to take action
in making a difference in their communities--in the context of a curriculum. As school reform, it tends to flourish
when fully integrated in a given classroom or even in an educational institution as a whole, rather than as a less
well-integrated add-on. The best examples of school reform involve the whole school and its governance, making
it important to consider how best to integrate Service Learning into the culture of an entire school and its
atmosphere (Braun, 1996; Furco, 1996). In any event, experimenting with block scheduling can also facilitate
Service Learning because meaningful service is more feasible with more time during the school day. Of course,
such dramatic systemic change is not crucial even if service is done during the school day, and it can certainly be
done after school. The present argument is that each educational institution should offer at least one Service
Learning opportunity per grade or academic level, for example, one teacher/professor at each level or in each
subject/discipline, with some infusion into the atmosphere and spirit of the institution.
Making this a reality in schools, colleges, and universities will require concerted, directed actions--to
promote interest in the value of Service Learning in K-12 and higher education, and in community-based
organizations as well, to increase seed funding for professional development and technical assistance, and to
enhance strategic planning to make ongoing Service Learning self-sustaining. Partnerships between K-12 schools
and institutions of higher education, in particular, can help enable sustainability--with cycles of Service Learning
undergraduates and K-12 students in some of the same service, in cross-age teams, where feasible, supporting
each other in collaboration. Partnerships are also needed between educational institutions and community-based
organizations. Of course, service activities must always be appropriately matched to students' age,
developmental abilities, interests, and experience, and the appropriate training and supervision for particular
Service Learning: A National Strategy
42
service tasks is needed, along with logistical, liability, and accountability support.
"Formal" and "informal" Service Learning The curriculum integration and reflection components of
Service Learning can be conducted "formally" within a school and its curriculum (e.g., within a class or classes),
or "informally" within a community-based organization, as indicated, and emphasized within existing guidelines
(see ASLER, 1993). In "formal" Service Learning, the process is coordinated entirely by the school and
integrated into the curriculum of a given classroom, or even into the curriculum and atmosphere of the whole
school, thus contributing to education reform efforts beyond simply offering Service Learning. "Informal"
Service Learning is coordinated independently of schools, which offer both the curriculum integration and
reflection components, along with the service opportunities, monitoring, supervision, and encouragement (Cairns
& Kielsmeier, 1995; Furco, 1994). Youth service organizations have great expertise in youth service as
compared with teachers professors who are more familiar with classroom teaching. Capacity-building is needed
in encouraging teachers/professors to utilize Service Learning as a tool for teaching and learning. But both
"informal" and "formal" Service Learning warrant promotion, support, and assistance.
Partnerships. In making Service Learning possible, both K-12 schools and institutions of higher
education can partner with community-based organizations (see Applebome, 1997; Rifkin, 1996; Sigmon, 1994).
Because "informal" Service Learning in community-based organizations typically is not connected with
educational institutions, except through extracurricular clubs, the full power of youth as engines of community
renewal and as people demonstrating civic engagement in action remains untapped. Collaboration between
schools and community-based organizations could maximize the number of students offered Service Learning
opportunities, because if a school were to guide students "formally" into activities at community-based
organizations, and were to "formalize" such experiences for students, far more youth would participate. If
community-based organizations can gear up to supervise greater numbers of volunteers, more students can do
"informal" Service Learning, based on the guidance of their educational institutions.
Of course, full integration of Service Learning into a curriculum at the school would not be mutually
exclusive with partnering with a local community-based organization. Moreover, academic institutions can take
Service Learning: A National Strategy
43
responsibility for the curriculum and reflection components without going so far as integrating service into a
traditional course, such as in math or history or psychology. Rather, it can be offered as a "field work" course
designed to appeal to students' desire to learn through action in the world, through service. This places less stress
on teachers/professors to change ongoing teaching styles, although many argue that teaching styles should change.
Still, a "field work" or "internship" course (with curriculum and reflection) may be easier to implement, and it
takes the burden off community-based organizations just as well as Service Learning in a traditional course.
Unsurprisingly, there is the worry that this kind of relationship between educational institutions and
community-based organizations could lead to a glut of youth volunteers in community-based organizations (Gose,
1997). Planning, monitoring, and a systematic collaboration between the school and the community-based
organization can prevent this, however. If schools were to provide much of the relevant orientation for newly
serving students to prepare them to enter the site, and perhaps organize other aspects of the partnership (such as
its curriculum), this can lift burdens from community-based organizations. Scaling-up programs at community-
based organizations so that more cross-age volunteers can effectively participate and more wide-ranging
populations can be served is feasible with the right planning (Schorr, 1997). There is little doubt that funding and
private-public partnerships would be needed to make it work. But community-based organizations offering
Service Learning are plentiful, and schools, colleges, and universities can do more to find systematic ways to
collaborate with them, furthering the work of these organizations, and their own educational missions as well.
In another form of partnership, noted briefly, colleges and universities can partner with local K-12
schools to facilitate Service Learning among K-12 students (see Harkavy, in press). In theory, such partnering
can help engage K-12 students in Service Learning because established activities that college and university
students are doing can be shared with teachers and administrators in K-12 schools, partnering with K-12 teachers
to help them to use such activities in their curriculum. College students can be role models for service, help
organize activities, and provide adult supervision under some circumstances, making it more feasible for K-12
schools to incorporate Service Learning into their overall educational mission. Of course, expert assistance is
needed to help set up the institutional structures to permit K-12 schools to collaborate with higher education. In
Service Learning: A National Strategy
44
particular, supportive principals and dedicated teachers must be identified, and a teacher-specialist in Service
Learning as well, to provide credible guidance and professional development (Root, 1994; Silcox, 1998). These
are important steps in establishing the infrastructure for Service Learning, and also for collaboration.
Seed funding. The holy grail of community development is seed funding provided to local initiatives--
grassroots individuals, groups, and organizations--building on existing capacities so that sustainable development
is achieved (Henton et al., 1997; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Within such a model, there is a role for
inspiring interest within a community or a school, for example, as capacity-building for an initiative, even when
there is little capacity or interest immediately evident. For this reason, a campaign to promote the value of
Service Learning, both nationally and locally, is warranted--highlighting its outcomes, its definitions, and how it is
done. In support of that, funding will also be needed to respond to increasing demand for professional
development in Service Learning based on a successful promotional effort, and for technical assistance as well.
Hence, expanded private-public partnerships will thus be needed to promote and implement Service Learning on a
more widespread basis nationally. Sensibly, much of what the Corporation for National Service funds is modeled
along the lines of private-public partnerships. That is, AmeriCorps members are partnered with existing local
community organizations in charge of service activities and fiscally invested in the member. Expanded funding is
thus needed for AmeriCorps (and AmeriCorps-VISTA), which can work to facilitate Service Learning. Clearly
more funding is needed for Learn and Serve America, which directly supports Service Learning nationally.
Private-public partnerships and seed funding. The best Service Learning--and the best community
service of any stripe--focuses on capacity-building in communities for reasons of sustainability (Kretzmann &
McKnight, 1993). Sustainability in Service Learning applies not only to the broad effects of the service on the
community--to improve the community--but also to the initiative itself, which can and hopefully will become self-
sustaining. This way, youth continually have the opportunity to serve, even as (or if) conditions improve in the
community, making a particular service no longer needed. Sustainability in both senses can be ensured by strong
private-public partnerships and systematic collaborations.
For example, one way to have an effective private-public partnership is to identify existing organizations
Service Learning: A National Strategy
45
that do (or could) sponsor AmeriCorps members in working to facilitate Service Learning in K-12 and higher
education. Selecting a set of AmeriCorps members whose express challenge it is to assist in developing and
enhancing Service Learning within K-12 schools, colleges, and universities, or within community-based
organizations, would be fruitful. AmeriCorps members could then work to develop "formal" and "informal"
Service Learning initiatives in a targeted use of federal resources. Special attention is needed to create private-
public partnerships--with contributions from community groups-that will develop the necessary infrastructure in
educational institutions for Service Learning. The best way to set the stage for AmeriCorps members' presence in
an educational institution is to first solicit the support of the principal (or dean or president), who can then
solicit/inspire participation from interested teachers/professors at each grade or educational level, and can identify
a competent and credible Service-Learning coordinator in the system (e.g., a respected teacher/professor) who has
time and salary allotted to this work. It is a process that can cross crucial hurdles for AmeriCorps members in
advance of their placement. Soliciting support from principals/deans, teachers/professors, and staff is crucial.
On another level, the national spotlight was turned last year to the Presidents' Summit for America's
Future, highlighting youth, youth service, grassroots efforts, and volunteerism. The event provided grist for a
national conversation about service and youth. Goal 5 of the Summit is to provide all young people with the
opportunity to serve. At this stage, the nonprofit organization, America's Promise, which emerged from the
Summit, is dedicated to furthering its five goals, and is committed to Service Learning as one avenue for Goal 5
(Powell, 1997), making America's Promise a potential partner.
Service Learning is a concept whose time has come. Numerous national organizations and coalitions are
pursuing initiatives concerned with Service Learning, including Campus Opportunity Outreach League (COOL),
Campus Compact, the Education Commission of the States, the K-12 Compact, the Partnering Initiative on
Education in Civil Society, and still others, along with America's Promise. At the federal level, the Corporation
for National Service supports Learn & Serve America, which funds Service Learning in K-12 and higher
educational (and in community-based organizations) nationally. It also supports AmeriCorps and the Senior
Service Corps. Both of the latter could be directed in part toward facilitating Service Learning. Also at the
Service Learning: A National Strategy
46
federal level, the Department of Education can support Service Learning through Goal 5 of Goals 2000, which
addresses citizenship education, and through the Improving America's Schools Act. The Act enables support for
Service Learning under Title I, which connects academic learning to real-world or career education, Title IV for
Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Title IC for migrant education, and Title IX for Indian education (in building on
local culture). Service Learning can also be supported in the charter school movement. Finally, the Department
of Education funds character education efforts, and these efforts can readily involve Service Learning.
Again at the federal level, there are two national mentoring/tutoring initiatives that would flourish with
increases in seed funding for Service Learning. America Reads makes funding available for college work study
students, AmeriCorps members, and others, to help young children learn to read before the end of the third grade.
An initiative in technology literacy has also been proposed to make sure all youth achieve the computer literacy
necessary to function effectively in contemporary society. Tutoring reading and tutoring in computer skills can
each be Service Learning, at all levels. Prevalent concerns about education in mathematics and a new federal
initiative, may make the time ripe for math tutoring as well.
In sum, building on available structures, assistance at the national level can be generated for creating the
private-public partnerships necessary in building capacity for Service Learning--in every grade or academic level
in every educational institution in the country.
Guidelines for quality. Guidelines for Service Learning in K-12 and higher education exist. Since 1993,
the Standards of Quality for School-Based and Community-Based Service-Learning have been the state-of-the-art
guidelines, as issued by the Alliance of Service-Learning in Educational Reform (ASLER, 1993). These
guidelines build on the Wingspread Special Report, Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service with
Learning (Honnet & Poulsen, 1989). Although there are many important elements, both in ASLER and in
Wingspread, and also in recent summary-definitions issued by the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) and the Corporation for National Service (CNS), agreement exists on four basics, as indicated, and
beyond this there is much variability. A tentative listing of standards in Service Learning is offered in the next
table, highlighting the four basics. Perfect overlap between the entire set of definitions and any initiative is
Service Learning: A National Strategy
47
unnecessary. These guidelines are simply guideposts to strive toward that focus the basics (the first four in the
list, which are shared by all), and highlight some others (selectively adapted from the various lists) to be
considered as well.
A Précis of Current Standards of Quality in Service-Learning
in K-12 and Higher Education*
meets actual community needs (with a small or large scope as defined by students' age and
experience), that is, needs that the community and those served have identified and agree
need to be addressed
is integrated into a relevant, thoughtfully organized curriculum, enhancing that curriculum,
whether in a school or in a community-based organization, and involves both academic and
skill-learning in preparation for the service
is accompanied by structured opportunities for students to reflect on their experiences-to think
write in journals, and talk in small, informal groups characterized by respect and constructive
problem-solving, both about the service experience, and about personal feelings, revealing
commonalities and differences that are respected among students
involves students as active participants and is shaped by students' "voice," so that students
are empowered in decision-making, come up with their own ideas, and organize services, in
a framework supported by teachers and staff
includes diversity, where possible, both among Service Learning participants (in their work
teams and reflection groups) and in those served, and whether or not such diversity is
achieved, highlights sensitivity to and respect for cultural and other differences
includes attention to fostering a sense of caring, civic responsibility, respect for human
dignity, and the ethic of service-elements of character and civic education
regularly assesses Service Learning impacts to guide improvement
*For a one-page summary of the ASLER, Wingspread, CCSSO, and CNS guidelines, respectively, see Appendix I,
where each guideline selected for the present listing is checked [ ].
This summarizes existing standards, as Service Learning continues to evolve, refined by experience. A
process for updating existing guidelines, ongoing for some time, will yield a new revision in the Wingspread and
Service Learning: A National Strategy
48
ASLER series (in 1998; Pam Toole, National Youth Leadership Council, personal communication, 1997; see also
Dugan, 1997). Nonetheless, the guidelines in Table 1 are likely to survive, with some refinements.
Guidelines for assessing effectiveness. The simplest strategy for determining whether or not Service
Learning is effectively implemented is to ask a set of straightforward questions: Does the service address a real
need? Is it integrated into a curriculum? Is it accompanied by reflection? And is it shaped in part by student
planning and leadership? A "yes" to all of these questions puts the initiative on firm footing (for a similar method,
see Melchior, 1997). On the other hand, new implementation guidelines for Service Learning--again to be issued
by the National Youth Leadership Council in 1998--will specify-a more complex procedure (Toole, 1997). To
calibrate exactly how well each standard is implemented a rubric can be used for determining an acceptable, good,
or high quality implementation for each standard (see Dugan, 1997; Toole, 1997). An elaborate standards-of-
quality assessment of this kind adds precision to a quality-of-implementation assessment based simply on
determining dichotomously whether or not the four main components of Service Learning are present.
The importance of effective implementation is indicated by the fact that some of the best research has
suggested that positive effects of Service Learning may be more prevalent when it meets minimal standards
(Melchior, 1997). Hence, widespread distribution of Service Learning guidelines describing its central elements
and how to gauge effective implementation will help practitioners do Service Learning well.
Of course, knowing how well Service Learning is implemented is a far cry from program evaluation for
the purposes of accountability and a far cry from meaningful, generalizable research on the effects of Service
Learning; it is only a first step. Both in-house evaluation work and more elaborate research studies need to gauge
implementation if it is to be clear that it is Service Learning that is being examined (see Bradley, 1996;
Cunningham, 1996; Kavaloski, 1997; Purdy, 1996; Stephens, 1995; Toole, 1997; Waterman, 1997). But there is
also a world of difference between program evaluation and well-controlled research that seeks to draw general
conclusions. Individual teachers, professors, and staff are unlikely to be interested in doing elaborate research
studies (or to have the expertise), and yet some evaluation is likely to be necessary and also valuable for students
as "action research" to help indicate if a change in practices is needed (e.g., Kavaloski, 1997; Waterman, 1997).
Service Learning: A National Strategy
49
To evaluate Service Learning efforts, schools are likely to need help in establishing low-cost, ongoing
evaluation procedures as part of routine monitoring. In addition, engaging students in the evaluation of their own
service efforts as "action research" can have special meaning for students, because they can then see the fruits of
their labor, better understand the problems addressed, and use the collected information to consider how they
might improve upon their work. In this respect, it is crucial that evaluation efforts are not only focused on the
impact of Service Learning on students, but also on its impact on the community and on those served.
Unfortunately, community impact is usually assessed largely in terms of "bean counts"--the number of service
hours logged. Such measures are relevant, but subtler measures are needed tapping the degree to which services
were effective. In addition, capacity-building impacts of any kind in the community, in which those served
becoming better empowered to help themselves, are worth assessing (e.g., a learner in a tutoring program who
now has a new skill). (For more on evaluation, see Bradley, 1996; Kielsmeier, 1997; Melchior & Bailis, 1996.)
Beyond program evaluation, a large-scale behavioral-science research agenda will also continue to be
needed in Service Learning. It is of the essence that we further increase knowledge about when Service Learning
is likely to work best when it works well, precisely why these effects occur when they do (based on what
mediating mechanisms), and precisely for what outcomes. It is worth noting as well that research is needed both
on ongoing initiatives and on basic processes relevant to Service Learning.
Addressing assessment from a different standpoint, neither program evaluation nor more generalizable
research speaks to the question of how to assess student achievement in Service Learning courses. In this regard,
some have argued that what is learned in such experiences is difficult to evaluate because it does come simply
from taking notes on a lecture, reading a book, or studying for an exam. The implication is that the effects for
individual students may be subtle and nuanced (e.g., Conrad & Hedin, 1989). New skills learned and concrete
competencies gained are likely to be specific, for example, involving the capacity to apply knowledge and also
higher-order problem-solving, rather than rote memory (Eyler & Halteman, 1981; Hamilton & Zeldin, 1987; see
also Silcox, 1993). This may mean that relevant academic achievements for participating students may be rather
more difficult to tap. Hence, support is needed to provide helpful hints for teachers, professors, and staff about
Service Learning: A National Strategy
50
how to develop indices of what is learned in Service Learning that are sensitive to actual learning (such as student
portfolios that document learning). Ideally, precise learning objectives are spelled out in preparation for service
activities and the academic assessment indices relevant both to the service and to the curriculum are used.
Issues in implementation. Because Service Learning can catalyze pivotal changes related to both
character and civic education, educators may be inclined to gear their curriculum explicitly toward these issues,
such as respect for others and social responsibility, a sense of caring and connection, community engagement, and
so on, within a wide range of possible curricula.
To take a particular example, the aim of civic education is to foster competent and responsible citizenship
based on an understanding of rights and responsibilities, privacy and social values, and history, public affairs, and
intellectual skills to think critically about civic and political life (e.g., Etzioni, 1993; Quigley, 1997). Hence, the
overall impact of Service Learning on civic attitudes might be maximized by incorporating service directly into a
civic education curriculum, involving formal instruction in political affairs and government (although a social
action model of civic education is not the only possible model). In addition, it is in fact possible to increase such
citizenship values as social responsibility by integrating service into English or math or other courses (Fellows,
1995; Jacoby et al., 1996; Stephens, 1995). Service Learning courses foster civic values by encouraging students
to take direct social action on social problems they have helped to identify and define, engaging with their
communities enough to be able to do this, and in so doing, gaining direct experience with participatory democracy.
Of course, if a school does not embody basic "civic values such as civility, respect for the rights of
others, recognition of human dignity, and constitutional processes, like adherence to due process of law," these
values are not likely to be internalized by students (Quigley, 1997, p. 6). The implicit curriculum of a school can
either support or undermine the explicit curriculum into which service and reflection are integrated. Schools teach
democracy best by modeling democracy (Becker & Couto, 1996; Gerson, 1997), and Service Learning is best
implemented when it emphasizes open communication, mutual respect, civility, a search for shared values, and
collaboration between students, teachers, staff, and those served. If such a democratic atmosphere does not exist
in the school, then teachers will need to take up the challenge on their own, one classroom at a time.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
51
Similarly, it could be argued that Service Learning should best facilitate character education--such as
social connectedness and perspective-taking--when the service is integrated into an explicit character education
curriculum that highlights virtuous character traits, such as respect and responsibility (e.g., Lickona, 1991), or
still others, such as kindness and compassion, honesty, loyalty, fairness, justice, and human rights (Moody &
McKay, 1993; see also Lewis, 1998). Discussing particular values people might manifest in action before
participating in a relevant service would exemplify this approach, whether or not the curriculum is focused
explicitly on character education. When preparing students in this way in advance of the service, what is likely to
matter most is that students have enough autonomy in deciding possible values to address and observe that the
values make sense to them (and their families) and they are able to internalize the experience (e.g., Deci, 1995).
Virtues are best "discovered" by students for themselves in serving and reflecting. And again, the
discovery process can take place in any number of courses, and can focus on any number of virtues, in for
example, talking about how it feels to work toward social justice, to be of service and to care, advancing the ethic
of service and the ethic of caring. Reflection after the service experience might also include discussion of broader
"virtues" such as empathy and perspective-taking, as well as acceptance and honoring of diversity, respect for
human dignity, and so on. Again, it is likely to matter less whether particular virtues are explicitly raised in
advance of service, and more exactly how these virtues or ethics are raised, so that students freely participate. Of
course, students' academic preparation for the service must be substantive and sufficient, and should include
specific learning objectives (LaPlante & Kinsley, 1994; Stephens, 1995), even while open discourse is encouraged
and students feel they are thinking about and grasping things for themselves.
Overall, Service Learning is best integrated fully into how a teacher or professor teaches or even into an
entire school atmosphere, so that it becomes intimately a part of education. In the absence of this, of course, it is
once again one classroom and one teacher at a time.
G. Conclusion
Service Learning brings youth together to make a difference by working toward shared goals, along with
teachers, staff, community members, and those served, across various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic divides.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
52
An extensive review of the research demonstrates that it is associated with civic engagement, the ethic of service,
civic attitudes, social connectedness, acceptance of diversity, academic achievement, and in some cases, even
reduction of risky behavior. These outcomes imply a stronger "sense of community" and thus heightened social
capital among youth--matters of demonstrable significance in adolescent development, based on large-scale
behavioral science research (Blum & Rinehart, 1997) and of great value in communitarian thought as well (e.g.,
Bellah et al., 1985; Etzioni, 1993). Overall, Service Learning fosters youth development, in terms of important
aspects of character and civic education (see also Berman et al., 1997).
Service Learning fosters civic education as thoroughly as character education, and can even provide
education for democracy (Barber & Battistoni, 1993; Barber, 1984, 1992). It offers teachable moments for
citizenship, such as respecting the rights of others, showing social responsibility, negotiating, and resolving
conflicts (Berman, 1990; Brandell & Hinck, 1997; Clark, 1993; Coles, 1993; Schine & Halsted). When students
work together democratically to reach decisions about how to assess the needs and resources of the community,
then do the assessment, decide on an action plan, and follow through with it, they learn the value of teamwork
directed toward a common good (see Cairn & Kielsmeier, 1995; Lewis, 1991). They learn how to be active, to
reach beyond themselves, and to take action. They have a "voice" in the process, collaborate with others who also
have "voice," are engaged, and experience the workings of civil society and participatory democracy first hand.
Service Learning is also a strategy that addresses the opportunities available to youth, in this case, the
opportunity to serve, as well as the relationships (both instrumental and caring) available to them--their social
capital (e.g., Briggs, 1997). It has its impact on youth by changing the opportunity structures available to them in
their schools and communities-in terms of relationships with adults and peers, and is thus an integrative strategy
for youth development in communitarian form (cf. Etzioni, 1983).
Of course, youth development, character education, and civic education are complicated and challenging,
especially when considered in the context of prejudice, hatred, and violence, and other antisocial behavior, that
plague many American communities. None of these ills will be solved with a magic bullet. Socioeconomic
factors, neighborhood resources, housing, and family relations, are all part of the complex social ecology that
Service Learning: A National Strategy
53
youth must navigate daily (e.g., Connell et al., 1995) and will be the context in which Service Learning is
experienced when implemented in neighborhoods and schools. Nonetheless, it can help build community, and
bring youth together with each other and with adults in collaboration, in relationships across the boundaries.
Importantly, there is now growing evidence that Service Learning can serve as an integrative strategy for
achieving multiple, valued aims in youth development in the context of education. This position paper
characterizes the need for Service Learning, its definitions, and its various forms, and presents an extensive
review of the empirical literature. It considers the voluntary/mandatory debate and suggests a coordinated
national strategy for promoting and funding Service Learning more widely in private-public partnerships.
There are Service Learning initiatives around that country that have been shown to work, and we can
learn from these "best practices" so as to replicate them elsewhere (Schorr, 1997). The pitfalls to be avoided in
attempting to "replicate" excellent practices from one setting to another, and even in expanding the reach of the
practices in a given setting, are well-captured by the watch words of flexibility and sensitivity to context
differences. When carefully honored, these challenges can be overcome in scaling-up best practices, given
sufficient time and fiscal investment. Although the "bible" of best practice examples in Service Learning has yet
to be fully compiled, such efforts are ongoing for K-12 education by the National Youth Leadership Council
(Toole, 1997; although see Urke & Wegner, 1993) and for colleges and universities by the American Association
of Higher Education. In the meantime, numerous curriculum examples are available, as noted. In the end,
support is needed for distributing definitional guidelines and best-practice examples widely--to teachers,
professors, principals, deans, schools, school districts, colleges, and universities.
The evidence suggests that it is time to take action at the national level to promote Service Learning and
make it available to more young people throughout their development--for their good, for the good of their
education, and for the good of our communities. The time is now.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
54
References
Allen, J.P., Kuperminc, G., Philliber, S., & Herre, K. (1994). Programmatic prevention of adolescent
problem behaviors: The role of autonomy, relatedness, and volunteer service in the teen outreach program.
Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 617-638.
Allen, J.P., Philliber, S. & Hoggson, N. (1990). School-based prevention of teenage pregnancy and
school dropout: Process evaluation of the national replication of Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 8, 505-524.
Alliance for Service Learning in Education Reform (1993). Standards of quality for school-based and
community-based service learning. Washington, DC: The Alliance for Service Learning in Education Reform.
Alt, M.N., & Medrich, E.A. (1994). Student outcomes from participation in community service. (Draft
prepared for the U.S. Department of Education.) Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.
Andersen, S.M., Reznik, I., & Chen, S. (1997). The self in relation to others: Cognitive and motivational
underpinnings. In J.G. Snodgrass & R.L. Thompson (Eds.), The self across psychology: Self-recognition, self-
awareness, and the self-concept (pp. 233-275). New York: New York Academy of Science.
Anderson, V., Kinsley, C., Negroni, P., & Price, C. (1991). Community Service Learning and School
Improvement in Springfield, Massachusetts. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, (10, June), 761-764.
Applebome, P. (1997). Plan adds 'civil education' to the basics of schooling. The New York Times,
April 14.
Astin, A.W., & Sax, L.J. (in press-1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.
Journal of College Student Development, 39(3).
Ayers, G.E., & Ray, D.B. (Eds.) (1995). Service-learning: Listening to different voices. Fairfax, VA:
The College Fund/UNCF.
Banaszak, R.A., & Hartoonian, H.M., & Leming, J. (1997). New horizons for civic education:
Multidisciplinary social issues approach for middle schools. In S. Totten & J.E. Pedersen (Eds.), Social issues
and service at the middle level (pp. 151-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Barber, B.R. (1991). A mandate for liberty: Requiring education-based community service. The
Responsive Community, 1(2), Spring.
Barber, B. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone: The politics of education and the future of America.
New York: Ballantine Books, 1992.
Barber, B. R., & Battistoni, R.M. (1993). Education for democracy. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt
Service Learning: A National Strategy
55
Publishing.
Barnett, L. (1996). Service learning: Why community colleges? New Directions for Community
Colleges: Promoting Community Renewal Through Civic Literacy and Service Learning, 24(1), 7-15
Batchelder, T.H., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic learning
and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-355.
Batson, C.D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baumeiester, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Becker, T.L., & Couto, R.A. (Eds.) (1996). Teaching democracy by being democratic. New York:
Praeger.
Bellah, R.N. (1995/1996). Community properly understood. The Responsive Community, 6(Winter),
49-54.
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the heart:
Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community.
San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational R&D.
Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resiliency in children. ERIC document. Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Bennett, K., & LeCompte, M. (1990). The way school works: A sociological analysis of education.
New York: Longman.
Berman, S. (1990). Educating for social responsibility. Educational Leadership, 48 November), 75-80.
Berman, S. (1997). Children's social consciousness and social responsibility. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Berman, S., Berreth, D., & Andersen, S.M. (1997). Schools as moral communities: Methods for
building empathy and self-discipline. Washington, DC: The Communitarian Network.
Bierma, A. (1998). Mandatory Service Learning? Making the Case (Newletter of the National Youth
Leadership Council, Minneapolis), Winter, 3.
Blyth, D.A., & Kroenke, C. (1996). Proceedings from the Service Learning Summit, September 9-10,
1995. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Blum, R.W., & Rinehart, P.M. (1997). Reducing the risk: Connections that make a difference in the
lives of youth. General Division of Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, University of Minnesota.
Boss, J.A. (1994). The effect of community service work on the moral development of college ethics
students. Journal of Moral Education, 23(2), 183-198.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
56
Boston, B. (1997a). Service learning: What it offers to students, schools, and communities.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Boston, B. (1997b). Their best selves: Bringing character education and service learning together in the
lives of young people. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (draft.)
Bradley, R. (1996). Evaluation helps programs function better. In G. Gulati-Partee and William Finger
(Eds.), Crucial issues in K-12 service learning. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential Education.
Brandell, M.E., & Hinck, S. (1997) Service learning: Connecting citizenship with the classroom.
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(591), 49-56. (Published in Reston, VA)
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social
capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.
Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on
desegregation. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp.
281-302). Orlando, PL: Academic Press.
Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
Brewer, M.B. (1996). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S.E. Jackson & M.N.
Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Briggs, X. de S. (1997). Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the multiple faces of social
capital. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.
Broder, D. (1997). Beyond 'bowling alone'. Washington Post, December 17.
Bullard, S. (1996). Teaching tolerance: Raising open-minded, empathic children. New York:
Doubleday.
Burke, J. (1991). Teenagers, clothes, and gang violence. Educational Leadership, September, 11-13.
Cairn, R.W., & Coble, T. (1993). Learning by giving: K-8 Service Learning guide. Minneapolis:
National Youth Leadership Council.
Cairn, R.W., & Kielsmeier, J.C. (Eds.) (1995). Growing hope: A sourcebook on integrating youth
service into the school curriculum. Minneapolis, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.
Calabrese, R.L., & Schumer, H. (1986). The effects of service activities on adolescent alienation.
Adolescence, 21(Fall), 675-687.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J.F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
57
Cappella, J.N., & Jamieson, K.H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Preparing American youth for the 21 st century.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the
nonschool hours. Task Force on Youth Development and Community Programs. New York: Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
Center for Civic Education (1994). National Standards for Civics and Government. Calabasas, CA:
Center for Civic Education.
Chalk, R., & Phillips, D.A. (Eds.) (1996). Youth development and neighborhood influences: Challenges
and opportunities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Checkoway, B. (1994). Involving young people in neighborhood development. Washington, DC:
Academy of Educational Development.
Chen, K. (1992) Political alienation and voting turnout in the United States, 1960-1988. San Francisco:
Mellen Research University Press.
Clark, T. (1993). Preparing citizens through service. Constitution Rights Foundation Network, 4(2), 1-4.
Cloud, J. (1997). Involuntary volunteers: Public schools are starting to require students to serve their
communities. Is it too much to ask? Time Magazine, December 1.
Cofer, J. Service Learning: A case study. Generator, Fall, 16-17.
Cognetta, P.V., & Printhall, N.A. (1978). Students as teachers: Role taking as a means of promoting
psychological and ethical development during adolescence. In N.A. Sprinthall & R.L. Mosher (Eds.), Value
development As the aim of education (pp. 53-68). Schenectady, NY: Character Research Press.
Cohen, J., & Kinsey, D. (1994). "Doing good' and scholarship: A Service Learning study. Journalism
Educator, Winter, 4-14.
Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C-L, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis
of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248.
Coles, R. (1993). The call of service: Witness to idealism. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Connell, J.P., Aber, J.L., & Walker, G. (1995). How do urban communities affect youth?: Social
science research to inform the design and evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives. In J.P. Connell et
al. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Conard, B.D., (1988). Cooperative learning and prejudice reduction. Social Education, 52 (4), 283-286.
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential education on adolescent development. Child
and Youth Services, 3, 57-76.
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1989). High school community service: A review of research and programs.
Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
58
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1991). School-based community service: What we know from research and
theory. Phi Delta Kappan (June).
Cooper, C.R., Grotevant, H.D., & Condon, S.M. (1983). Individuality and connectedness in the family
as a context for adolescent identity formation and role-taking skill. In H.D. Grotevant & C.R. Cooper (Eds.),
New Directions in Child Development: Adolescent Development in Family (Vol. 22, pp. 43-59). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cunningham, M. (1996). Consulting with peers: An exchange for mutual renewal. In G. Gulati-Partee
and William Finger (Eds.)., Crucial issues in K-12 service learning (pp. 120-126). Raleigh, NC: National
Society for Experiential Education.
Danzig, R., & Szanton, P. (1986). National service: What would it mean? Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Deci, E.L. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Putnam Publishing.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1986). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum Press.
Developmental Studies Center (1996). That's my buddy!: Friendship and learning across the grades.
Oakland, CA: Developmental Studies Center.
Dieringer, L., & Kattef, E.W. (1997). Every step counts: Service and social responsibility. In S. Totten
& J.E. Pedersen (Eds.), Social issues and service at the middle level (pp. 340-360). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Dugan, M.S. (1997). Harvest of hybrids: A conversation in the garden of Service-Learning standards.
Generator, Fall, 4-10.
Duvall, L. (1994). Respecting our differences: A guide to getting along in a changing world.
Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Ebbinghaus, L., & Batson, J. (1996). Recruitment and diversity. In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R. Finger
(Eds.), Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 171-175). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential
Education.
Elliott, D.S., Wilson, W.J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R.J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of
neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33,
389-426.
Elshtain, J.B. (1995). Democracy on trial. New York: Basic Books.
Etzioni, A. (1983). An immodest agenda. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities, and the communitarian agenda.
New York: Crown Publishers.
Etzioni, A. (1997). The new golden rule: Community and morality in a democratic society. New York:
Basic Books.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
59
Eyler, J., Giles, D.E., & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of Service Learning on college students.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5-15.
Eyler, J., & Halteman, B. (1981). The impact of a legislative internship on students' political skill and
sophistication. Teaching Political Science, 9, 27-34.
Fellows, S. (1995). Social studies moves into the community. In C.W. Kinsley & K. McPherson (Eds.),
Enriching the curriculum through service learning (pp. 21-23). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Finney, M.R. (1977). Service Learning in Maryland: Making academics more relevant. Bulletin of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(591), 37-44.
Fiske, S.T., & Ruscher, J.B. (1993). Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence the affect? In
D.M. Mackie & D.L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group
perception (pp. 239-268). San Diego: Academic Press.
Follman, J., & Muldoon, K. (1997). Florida Learn & Serve 1995-96: What were the outcomes?
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(591), 29-36.
Fugazzi, E. (1996). Professional renewal through reflection and celebration. In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R.
Finger (Eds.), Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 216-222). Raleigh, NC: National Society for
Experiential Education.
Furco, A. (1994). A conceptual framework for the institutionalization of youth service programs in
primary and secondary education. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 395-409.
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning as educational reform. In G. Gulati-Partec & W.R. Finger (Eds.),
Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 65-68). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential Education.
Galston, W.A. (1996). Remarks. White House/Congressional Conference on Character Building,
Washington, DC, June.
Gabelko, N.H. (1988). Prejudice reduction in secondary schools. Social Education, 52(4), 276-279.
Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B.A., & Rust, M.C. (1993). The common
ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). New York: Wiley.
Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J.A., Dovidio, J.F., Murrell, A.J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation
reduce intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704.
Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J.A., Murrell, A.J., Dovidio, J.F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits
of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249.
Gaertner, S.L., Rust, M.C., Dovidio, J.F., Bachman, B.A., & Anastasio, P.A. (1994). The contact
hypothesis: The role of common intergroup identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Groups Research, 25,
224-249.
Genzer, D., & Finger, W. (1996). Involving faculty in reflection. In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R. Finger
Service Learning: A National Strategy
60
(Eds.), Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 153-157). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential
Education.
Gerson, M. (1997). Teaching democracy by doing it! Educational Leadership, 54(5, February), 6-11.
Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students'
personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327-339.
Giles, D., Honnet, E., & Migliore, S. (1991). Research agenda for combining service and learning in the
1990s. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than I.Q. New York: Bantam.
Gomez, B. (1996). Service-Learning and school-to-work strategies for revitalizing urban education and
communities. Education and Urban Society, 28, 160-166.
Gose, B. (1997). Many colleges move to link courses with volunteerism. Chronicle of Higher Education,
November 14, 45-46.
Gough, R. (1997). Building character through sports. Washington, DC: The Communitarian Network.
Gulati-Partee, G., & Finger, W.R. (Eds.,) (1996). Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning. Raleigh,
NC: National Society for Experiential Education.
Hart, P. (1989). Democracy's next generation. Washington, DC: People for the American Way.
Hamilton, S.F., & Fenzel, L.M. (1988). Impact of volunteer experience on adolescent social
development: Evidence of program effects. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3, 65-80.
Hamilton, S.F., & Zeldin, R.S. (1987). Learning civics in the community. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(4),
407-420.
Harkavy, I. (in press). Organizational innovation and the creation of the New American University: The
University of Pennsylvania's Center for Community Partnerships as a developing case study. In R.M. Lerner &
L.A.K. Simons (Eds.), Outreach universities for America's youth and families: Building university-community
collaborations for the twenty-first century.
Harvey, W. (1996). Reflection leads to real learning. In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R. Finger (Eds.), Critical
issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 127-131). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential Education.
Hatcher, J.A., & Bringle, R.G. (1996). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning.
College Teaching, 45(4), 153-158.
Haugsby, T. (1991). Service learning and cooperative education: Serving god or mammon. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 27(2), 99-106.
Hawley, W.D., & Jackson, A.W. (Eds.). Toward a common destiny: Improving race relations in
America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Haynes, C.C. (1994). Character education in the public schools. In C.C. Haynes (Eds), Finding common
ground: A first amendment guide to religion and public education. Nashville: The Freedom Forum First
Service Learning: A National Strategy
61
Amendment Center, Vanderbilt University.
Heath, S.B., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). Identity and inner-city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hedin, D. (1987). Students as teachers: A tool for improving school climate and productivity. Social
Policy, 3(Winter), 42-47.
Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (1997). Grassroots leaders for a new economy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Herbert, B. (1997). The success taboo. New York Times, December 14.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the "contact
hypothesis." In M. Hewstone and R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44).
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hines, E.B.W. (1997). High marks for the student service program. Washington Post, November 17.
Hollinger, L.B. (1996). Coaching students to be leaders. In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R. Finger (Eds.),
Critical issues in K-12 service-learning (pp. 165-170). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential
Education.
Honnet, E.P., & Poulsen, S.J. (1989) Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning:
A Wingspread Report. Racine, Wisconsin: Johnson Foundation.
Humes, E. (1996). No matter how loud I shout: A year in juvenile court. New York: Torchstone/
Simon & Schuster.
Huo, Y.J., Smith, H., Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup
identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; Is assimilation the answer? Psychological
Science, 7, 40-45.
Inlong, J. (1998). It's 4:00 p.m.: Do you know where your children are? Newsweek, April 27, 23-33.
Institute for Global Ethics (1996). Service-Learning and Character Education. Washington, DC:
Institute for Global Ethics.
Jackman, M., & Muha, M. (1984). Education and intergroup attitudes: Moral enlightenment, superficial
democratic commitment, or ideological refinement? American Sociological Review, 49, 751-759.
Jackson, K. (Ed.), 1994). Redesigning curricula: Models of service learning syllabi. Providence:
Campus Compact.
Jacoby, B., & Associates (1996). Service learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1995). Reducing school violence through conflict resolution. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R.M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success
Service Learning: A National Strategy
62
as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-412.
Kavaloski, J.H. (1997). We know kids like it but does it work?: Assessing Service Learning through
classroom action research. Generator, Fall, 15-16.
Kendall, J. & Associates (Eds.,) (1990). Combining service and learning: A resource book for
community and public service, Vol. 1. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential
Education.
Kennedy, E.M. (1991). National service and education for citizenship. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(10), 771-
773.
Kielsmeier, J.C. (1997). Harnessing the Trojan horse: Future directions in service learning. Generator,
Fall/Winter, 4-5.
King, M., Walder, L.O., & Pavey, S. (1970). Personality changes as a function of volunteer experience
in a psychiatric hospital. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 423-425.
Kinsley, C.W. (1997). Service Learning: A process to connect learning and living. Bulletin of the
National Association of Secondary School Principles, 81(591), 1-7. (Published in Reston, VA)
Kinsley, C.W., & McPherson, K. (Eds.) (1995). Enriching the curriculum through service learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Klie, R., & Steele, G. (1990). Should service be mandatory? In J.C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.),
Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (Vol. 1, pp. 550-556).
Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Kretzmann, J.P., & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward
finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.
Kupermine, G., Allen, J.P., & Arthur, M.W. (1996). Autonomy, relatedness, and male adolescent
delinquency: Toward a multidimensional view of social competence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 397-
420.
Kupiec, T.Y. (Ed) (1993). Rethinking tradition: Integrating service with academic study on college
campuses. Denver: The Education Commission of the States.
Kurtzberg, R.L., & Faughnan, K. (1997). Future problem solving: Preparing middle school students to
solve community problems. In S. Totten & J.E. Pedersen (Eds.), Social issues and service at the middle level (pp.
171-194). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
LaPlante, L.J., & Kinsley, C.W. (1994). Things that work in community service learning. Springfield,
MA: Community Service Learning Center.
Lemann, N. (1996). Kicking in groups. Atlantic Monthly, April, 22-26.
Levison, L. (1990). Required VS. voluntary?: The great debate. In J.C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.),
Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (Vol. 1, pp. 545-549).
Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
63
Lewis, B.A. (1991). The kid's guide to social action. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Lewis, B.A. (1995). The kid's guide to service projects. Minncapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Lewis, B.A. (1998). What do you stand for?: A kid's guide to building character. Minneapolis, MN:
Free Spirit Publishing.
Lickona, T (1991). Educating for character. New York: Bantam Books.
Lynch, J. (1987). Prejudice reduction and the schools. New York: Nichols Publishing.
Mackie, D.M., & Hamilton, D.L. (Eds.) (1993). Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive
processes in group perception. San Diego: Academic Press.
MacIver, D.J., Reuman, D.A., & Main, S.R. (1995). Social structuring of the school: Studying what is,
illuminating what could be. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 375-400.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Miller, N., Holtz, R., & Brewer, M.B. (1993). Cross-cutting category membership
with role assignment: A means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 125-146.
Markus, G.B., Howard, J., & King, D. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction
enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419.
Mathias, B., & French, M.A. (1996). 40 ways to raise a nonracist child. New York: Harper Collins.
McGuire, K.D., & Weisz, J.R. (1982). Social cognition and behavior correlates of preadolescent
chumships. Child Development, 53, 1478-1484.
McLeod, J.M., Horowitz, E.M., & Evaland, W.P., Jr. (1995). Socialization of citizenship values.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Melchior, A. (1997). National evaluation of Learn and Serve America school and community-based
programs. Interim Report, April.
Melchior, A., & Bailis, L. (1996). Evaluating service learning: Practical tips for teachers. CRF
Network (Spring). Los Angeles, CA: Constitutional Rights Foundation.
Mischel, W (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological
Review, 80, 252-283.
Moody, B., & McKay, L (1993). PREP: A process, not a recipe. Educational Leadership, Nov., 28-30.
Morano, R. (1997). Young volunteers: Providing service and making an impact on communities.
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(591), 45-48.
Morse, S. (1990). Developing a capacity for civic judgment. In J.C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.),
Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (Vol. 1, pp. 225-233).
Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Myers-Lipton, S.J. (1996). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on college students' level
of modern racism. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Fall, 44-54.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
64
Myers-Lipton, S.J. (1996/7). Effect of service-learning on college students' attitudes toward international
understanding. Journal of College Student Development, 37(6), 659-667.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Helper's Network (1991). Reflection: The key to service learning. New York: National
Helper's Network.
National Helper's Network (1995). Teaching and learning: Helpers' service across the curriculum. New
York: National Helper's Network.
National Research Council (1993). Losing generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings. Panel on
High-Risk Youth, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1997). Workshop on Building Constructive Communities for Youth.
Washington, DC, October.
National Youth Leadership Council (1994). Route to reform: K-8 service-learning curriculum ideas.
Minneapolis, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.
Newmann, F.M. (1989). Adolescents' participation in developmental activity: A method of assessment.
Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Newmann, F.M., & Rutter, R.A. (1983). The effects of high school and community service programs on
students' social development. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Noddings, N. (1994). Conversation as moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 22, 107-118.
Noddings, N. (1987). Caring as a moral orientation in teaching. Ethics in Education, 48, 32-37.
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American
Journal of Education, 96, 215-230.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). At-risk alternatives. Washington Post Magazine, December 14, 5-6.
Pate, G.S. Research on reducing prejudice. Social Education, 52(4), 287-289.
Pettigrew, T.R. (in press, 1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology.
Philliber, S., & Allen, J.P. (1992). Life options and community service: Teen Outreach Program. In
B.C. Miller, J.J. Card, R.L. Paikoff, & J.L. Peterson (Eds.), Preventing adolescent pregnancy: Model programs
and evaluations (pp. 139-155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Philliber, S., & Allen, J.P. (1993). Teen Outreach, Progress and Outcome: 1984-1992. Unpublished
manuscript.
Pittman, K.(1991).A framework for defining and promoting youth participation. Future Choices, 3, 85-98.
Powell, C.L. (1997). Everybody's children: Giying helps young people grow. Time Magazine,
Service Learning: A National Strategy
65
December 15.
Purdy, A. (1996). How do you assess service-learning? In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R. Finger (Eds.),
Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 190-195). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential
Education.
Putnam, R.D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1,
January), 65-78.
Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Bowling alone, revisited. The Responsive Community, 5 (Spring), 18-33.
Quigley, C. (1997). The role of civic education. Washington, DC: The Communitarian Network.
Raspberry, W. (1997a). To change a culture: Making achievement cool. Washington Post, December 5.
Raspberry, W. (1997b). The way they play on the mean strects. Washington Post, December 13.
Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.M., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring,
T., Sieving, R.E., Shew, M., Ireland, M. Bearinger, L.H., Udry, J.R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm:
Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 278(10), September 10, 823-832.
Rieken, H. (1952). The volunteer work camp: A psychological evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Rifkin, J. (1996). Preparing the next generation of students for the civil society. Community College
Journal, 66(5), 20-22.
Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-
market era. New York: Putnam.
Rifkin, J. (1997). Preparing students for the "the end of work." Educational Leadership, 54(5,
February), 30-33.
Roberts-Weah, W. (1995). Service learning honors cultural diversity. In C.W. Kinsley & K. McPherson
(Eds.), Enriching the curriculum through service learning (pp. 59-64). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Curriculum Supervision and Development.
Robinson, G., & Barnett, L. (1996). Service learning and community colleges: Where are we? Survey
Report. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Root, S. (1994). Service Learning in teaching education: A third rationale. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 1, 94-97.
Rutter, M. (1982). Prevention of children's psychosocial disorders: Myth and substance. Pediatrics, 70,
883-894.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial reslience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of
Service Learning: A National Strategy
66
Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.
Rutter, R.A., & Newmann, F.M. (1989). The potential of community service to enhance civic
responsibility. Social Education, 53(6, October), 371-374.
Sagawa, S., & Halperin, S. (1993). Visions of service: The future of the National and Community
Service Act. Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center and American Youth Policy Forum.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9,
185-211.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multi-level
study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
Sandel, M.J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Sausjord, I. (1993). Research on children, youth, and prejudice: Some implications for Service Learning.
Constitutional Rights Foundation Network, 4 (3), 1-3.
Sax, L.J., & Astin, A.W. (1997). The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates. Educational
Record, Summer/Fall, 24-32.
Sax, L.J., Astin, A.W, & Astin, H.S (1996). What were LSAHE impacts on volunteers? In Rand
Corporation (Eds.), Evaluation of Learn and Serve America, Higher Education: First Year Report, Volume 1.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation Institute on Education and Training.
Sax, L.J., Astin, A.W., Korn, W.S., & Mahoney, K.M. (1996). The American freshman: National
norms for Fall, 1996. Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
Sax, L.J., Astin, A.W., Korn, W.S., & Mahoney, K.M. (1997). The American freshman: National
norms for Fall, 1997. Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
Scales, P.C., & Blyth, D.A. (1997). Effects of service learning on youth: What we know and what we
need to know. Generator, Winter, 6-9
Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (1997). School as a caring community: A key to character
education. In A. Molnar (Ed.), The construction of character: Ninety-sixth yearbook of the National Society of
the Study of Education (pp. 127-139). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Schine, J., & Halsted, A. (1997). Alienation or engagement?: Service learning may be answer. In S.
Totten & J.E. Pedersen (Eds.), Social issues and service at the middle level (pp. 195-210). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schorr, L.B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Schumer, R. (1997). What research tells us about designing service learning programs. Bulletin of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(591), 18-24. (Published in Reston, VA)
Shipler, D.K. (1997). A country of strangers: Blacks and whites in America. New York: Knopf.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
67
Sigmon, R. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist (Spring), 9-11.
Sigmon, R. (1994). Linking service with learning. Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges.
Silcox, H.C. (1993). A how-to guide to reflection: Adding cognitive learning to community service
programs. Philadelphia: Brighton Press.
Silcox, H.C. (1995). The need to consider Service Learning in developing further vocational education
programs. In C.W. Kinsley & K. McPherson (Eds.), Enriching the curriculum through service learning (pp. 24-
30). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Silcox, H.C. (1998). University teacher training programs: A vital issue for Service Learning policy
planners. Making the Case (Newletter of the National Youth Leadership Council, Minneapolis), Winter, 2.
Singh, B.R. (1991). Teaching methods for reducing prejudice and enhancing academic achievement for
all children. Educational Studies, 17(2), 157-171.
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1979). School practices that improve race relations. American
Educational Research Journal, 16(2), 169-180.
Smith, H.J., & Tyler, T.R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the
advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the
law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171-200.
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E, & Delucchi, K (1992). Creating a caring
community: Educational practices that promote children's prosocial development. In F.K. Oser, A. Dick, & J.
Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sonnenschein, F.M. (1988). Countering prejudiced beliefs and behaviors: The role of the social studies
professional. Social Education, 52(4), 264-266.
Sowell, T. (1990). Racism, as such, is not new. What is new are the frequency, the places, and the class
of people involved. Chronicle of Higher Education, 39(25), February 24.
Stanton, T. (1990). Service learning and leadership development: Learning to be effective while learning
what to be effective about. In J.C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A resource
book for community and public service (Vol. 1, pp. 336-353). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and
Experiential Education.
Steele, C. (1992). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic Monthly, 69(4, April), 68-78.
Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.
American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stercotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Stengel, R. (1996). Bowling together. Time Magazine, July 22, 35-36.
Stephens, L.S. (1995). The complete guide to learning through community service, Grades K-9. Boston:
Service Learning: A National Strategy
68
Allyn & Bacon.
Switzer, G.E., Simmons, R.G., Dew, M.A., Regalski, J.M., & Wang, C. (1995). The effect of a school-
based helper program on adolescent self-esteem, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4),
429-455.
Tatum, B.D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York: Basic Books.
Tatum, B.D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity
development theory in the [college] classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1-24.
Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1997). Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical investigation.
Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.
Tierney, J.P., & Branch, A.Y. 1992). College students as mentors for at-risk youth. Philadelphia:
Private/Public Ventures.
Tirozzi, G.N., & Uro, G. (1997). Education reform in the United States: National policy in support of
local efforts for school improvement. American Psychologist, 52, 241-249.
Toole, J. (1997). We need to know more than the effects of Service-Learning: The case for
implementation research. Generator, Fall, 1997.
Toole, P., & Toole, J. (1995). Reflection as a tool for turning service experiences into learning
experiences. In C.W. Kinsley & K. McPherson (Eds.), Enriching the curriculum through service learning (pp.
99-114). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torney-Purtna, J. (1995). Psychological theory as a basis for political socialization research:
Individuals' construction of knowledge. Perspectives on Political Science, 24, 23-33.
Torney-Purtna, J. (1995) Education in multicultural settings: Perspectives from global and international
education programs. In W.D. Hawley and A.W. Jackson (Eds.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and
ethnic relations in America (pp. 341-370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Totten, S., & Pedersen, J.E. (Eds.), Social issues and service at the middle level. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn Bacon.
Tyack, D. (1997). Civic education: What roles for citizens? Educational Leadership, 54(5), 22-24.
Tyler, R. (1990). Education for participation: Implications for school curriculum and instruction. In
J.C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public
service (Vol. 1, pp. 201-209). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Tyler, T.R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social
identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497.
Urke, B., & Wegner, M. (1993). Profiles in service: A handbook of service learning programs and
design models. Minnesota: National Youth Leadership Council.
Vallerand, R.J., Fortier, M.S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life
setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Service Learning: A National Strategy
69
72, 1161-1176.
Verba, S., Scholzman, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American
politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vigil, J. (1988). Group processes and street identity: Adolescent Chicano gang members. Ethos, 16(4),
421-445.
Walsh, D. (1988). Critical thinking to reduce prejudice. Social Education, 52(4), 280-282.
Waterman, A.S. (1997). Teacher-researcher process outlined. Generator, Winter, 12-13.
Weah, W., & Wegner, M. (1997). Service learning: A catalyst for social action and school change at the
middle level. In S. Totten & J.E. Pedersen (Eds.), Social issues and service at the middle level (pp. 211-233).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Weissberg, R.P., Caplan, M., & Harwood, R.L. (1991). Promoting competent young people in
competence-enhancing environments: A systems-based perspective on primary prevention. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 59, 830-841.
Wells, A. (1996). The grand reflection: How to bring closure to an open-ended service-learning course.
In G. Gulati-Partee & W.R. Finger (Eds.), Critical issues in K-12 Service-Learning (pp. 132-136). Raleigh, NC:
National Society for Experiential Education.
Wildavsky, B. (1991). Is there harm in having to do good?: Mandatory voluntarism. The American
Enterprise, September/October, 64-71.
Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W.J. (1991). Studying inner-city dislocations: The challenges of public agenda research.
American Sociological Review, 45, 1-14.
Wofford, H. (1994). Reform and renewal: The promise of service-learning. In A. Wilhelm (Ed.),
Effective learning teaching, service: Voices from the field on improving education through service-learning (pp.
4-5). Washington, DC: Youth Service America.
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996a). Community service and political-moral identity in adolescents.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 271-284.
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996b). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence.
Social Development, 5, 85-111.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J.A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620-631.
Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Zigler, E., & Berman, W. (1983). Discerning the future of early childhood intervention. American
Psychologist, 38, 894-906.
Service Learning: A National Strategy
70
Appendix I (a)
The ASLER Guidelines
Adapted from the Standards of Quality for Service Learning
Alliance for Service-Learning in Educational Reform, 1995
I. Integrates Service with Academic Learning
2. Teaches New Skills and New Thinking so as to Build New Competencies
3. Involves a Reflection Component as well as Sufficient Preparation
4. Takes Place in an Atmosphere in which Service is Recognized
5. Incorporates the "Voice" of Students in Planning/Organizing
6. Makes a Real Contribution to the Community
7. Assesses this Real Contribution in the Community along with Other Effects
8. Connects the School and Sponsoring Organization in New Ways
9. Is Supported as Integral to the School and to the Community Organization
10. Involves Skilled Adult Guidance/Mentoring
II. Involves Relevant Pre-Service Training and Staff Development
Service Learning: A National Strategy
71
Appendix I (b)
The Wingspread Guidelines
Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning:
A Wingspread Report
Honnet & Poulsen, 1989
Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation
I. Engages people in responsible and challenging actions for the common good
2. Provides structured opportunities for reflecting critically on service experiences
3. Articulates clear service and learning goals for everyone involved
4. Allows for those with needs to define those needs
5. Clarifies the responsibilities of each person and organization involved
6. Matches service providers and service needs (recognizing changing circumstances)
7. Expects genuine, active, and sustained organizational commitment
8. Includes training, supervision, monitoring, support, recognition, and evaluation
9. Ensures flexible, appropriate time commitments in the best interests of all
10. Is committed to participation by and with diverse populations
Service Learning: A National Strategy
72
Appendix I (c)
The CCSSO Guidelines
Provided by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993
Boston, 1997
Service Learning: What it offers to students, schools, and communities
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers
VI. Enables participants to learn and develop through active participation in
thoughtfully organized service conducted to meet community needs
2. Is coordinated within K-12 or higher education or within a community-
based organization
3. Helps to foster civic responsibility
4. Is integrated into and enhances curriculum or educational component
5. Provides structured time for reflection on the service experience
Service Learning: A National Strategy
73
Appendix I (d)
The CNS Guidelines
Provided for School-Coordinated Service Learning
Corporation for National Service
Prepared by RMC Research Corporation, 1997
Denver, Colorado
VI. Enables participants to learn and develop through active participation in
thoughtfully organized service conducted to meet community needs in
collaboration with the school and community
2. Is integrated into the academic curriculum and provides structured time for
reflection (thinking, talking, writing about the service experience)
3. Provides opportunities to use newly acquired skills and knowledge in real-life
situations in the community
V 4. Enhances what is taught in school by extending student learning beyond the classroom
and thereby helping to foster the development of a sense of caring for others
5. Is supported by regular assessment to provide feedback and guide improvement
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 16, 1998
Thomas L. Applin
5201 Carlton Street
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
Dear Tom:
Thank you for your thoughtful note, calls and
wonderful offer to be of assistance, and all your other
kindnesses. I've passed along your good wishes which are
much appreciated.
It's been for too long since I've seen you. Perhaps
there will be some time in the near future. Right now, I'm
constantly on the go.
Sincerely,
Rune
Chief of Staff to
the First Lady
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TTTLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. letter
To Melanne Verveer from Thomas L. Applin (2 pages)
09/12/1998
Personal Misfile
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
First Lady's Office
Melanne Verveer
OA/Box Number: 14384
FOLDER TITLE:
Melanne Verveer's Mail - 1998 - A [2]
2014-0534-S
ry 1601
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA|
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
h(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASTHINGION
November 11, 1998
Asociacion Nacional De Jovenes Empresarios
Av. Lope de Vega
Esq. Rafeal Augusto Sanchez
Plaza Intercaribe, Suite 313
Santa Domingo, RD
Dominican Republic
Dear Sir:
Oscar de la Renta forwarded your invitation to the
First Lady to address the Association of Young
Businessmen when she is in the Dominican Republic.
Mrs. Clinton's visit regrettably is short and her
schedule is very tight. Therefore, she will not be able to
accept the Association's kind invitation. However, please
convey Mrs. Clinton's appreciation for the group's
thoughtfulness, along with her best wishes.
Hope all is well with you.
Sincerely,
me
Melanne Verveer
Chief of Staff to
the First Lady
cc:
Oscar de la Renta
R
OscardelaRenta
November 3, 1998
Ms. Melanne Vreveer
The White House
Room 100, OEOB
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Melanne:
I have enclosed the information on the Association of Young Businessmen who have asked me
to intervene on their behalf and see if Mrs. Clinton would address them on her upcoming visit to
the Dominican Republic.
I told them that because her visit will be short and that Mrs. Clinton's schedule is very tight, this
might not be possible but, nevertheless, I am sending you the information. This group is
composed of the most influential young business administrators in the Dominican Republic.
I am off to France today and will be back in the office on Tuesday, November 10th. If you need
to contact me before then, please call my assistant, Ana Salcido and she will let me know.
Sincerely,
Oscar de la Renta
PHOTOCOPY
MISC. HANDWRITING
OSCAR DE LA RENTA, LTD. 550 SEVENTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10018, PHONE 212/354 6777 FAX 212/768 9110
P.02
ANT
ASOCIACION
NACIONAL
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF YOUNG BUSINESSMEN, INC.
DE JOVENES
(ANJE)
PROFILE
EMPRESARIOS
The National Association of Young Businessmen, Inc. (ANJE for its initials in Spanish),
is a non-profit organization founded in November 1978 by a group of young
entrepreneurs with the objective to defend free enterprise at a time when the Dominican
Republic was going through political and economic changes. It gathers businessmen who
represent this country's different productive sectors, therefore, its objectives basically
concentrate on institutional aspects and on achieving adecuate development conditions.
ANJE's foundation came to represent the beginning of a new profile within de business
sector, which until then had been led by entrepreneurs who represented traditional
production sectors with conservative ideas.
Such group of young professionals with more advanced ideas and firm wish to modernize
the country had graduated from world renowned institutions. And starting from the belief
that a country without strong State institutions regulating the whole national productive
machinery could not propitiate development and creation of new businesses, it assumed
the task of proposing measures, in a more open manner, to lead the country towards
better horizons through different seminars and forums (or fora).
Since its foundation ANJE has advocated for the State's concentration on creating a more
favorable development climate, maintaining public peace, organizing its institutions,
sponsoring, regulating and propitiating investments, facilitating the means of education
and social assistance for the workers as well as on creating adecuate legislation, in a way
that the responsibility for the private sector's development be harmonic and continuous.
In 1979 it started a campaign called "The Role of the Dominican State in a Mixed
Economy", which ended in a seminar titled the same.
In 1980 through a dialogue between the public and private sectors, the Association of
Young Businessmen concentrated its efforts on industrial development, allowing the
participation of businessmen in the discussions regarding this industry's development in
the Dominican Republic. At the same time, ANJE put real emphasis on the conduction
of Dominican economy towards a market oriented economy, by eliminating price
controls, as well as the excessive subsidies and protectionism.
During 1981, 1982 and 1983 ANJE played a decisive role on the discussions for national
production's Payments. increase and its planification as a means to reach an even Balance of
Av. Lope de Vega
Esq. Rafael Augusto Sanchez
Edif. Plaza Intercanbe, Suite 313
Tels: 563-7018/567-3026
Fax: 565-4891, Sto. Dgo R D
RNC: 4-01-50189-9
P.03
The search for a new social and economic model was one of the biggest concerns for
Dominican businessmen headed by ANJE in the mid eighties. The need to adopt a model
of development that was compatible with the urgencies of the moment both at the social
level and in the business activity; also a model through which model economic policies
destined to a susbtantial reduction of public expenses and the privatization of State
owned enterprises could be taken, turned out to be ANJE's main concern in 1984. By
means of seminars and meetings, the association gathered prominent private and public
sector's representatives to study and agree on the most appropiate measures to allow the
creation of a fit model for the the country's development.
For the National Association of Young Businessmen, the private sector is the instrument
to develop the country, therefore since its foundation it has fought for the reduction of
government's employees, leaving alone the private sector as the executer of economic
activities. Nevertheless, ANJE has been one of the few business organizations of the
Dominican Republic that, upon evaluation, has understood the compromise of the private
sector to identify, organize and unite around itself to get the substance and quota of
participation for its points of view to be taken into account. That is how in 1985 it held a
national forum about the private sector's influence on the national reality.
In 1986 Dominican businessmen placed their expactations on the new government that
took power. ANJE, at the vanguard of State's modernization, made up a summary of
recommedations to the new public administration, among these: the promotion of laws to
stimulate production, the officient management of tax resources, the promotion of an
open and true labor climate, the creation of a social security system, to give real
importance to free trade zones, stimulation for lower interest rates, the creation of a free
exchange market, the reduction of social expenses and of the public institutions' payroll,
to raise the education level of the country, above all in the rural areas, and to put more
emphasis on tourism as an instrument of national development.
The Dominican Republic's monetary and exchange problems, were confusing and
causing great despair by the end of the eighties. In 1987, ANJE foresaw the need of a
monetary reform having as objective a balance between the Central Bank's emission and
demonetizing functions, the fomentation of fiscal incentives and the correct application of
existing taxes within the universe of taxpayers.
In the beginning of the nineties, we saw how the private sector was growing while the
State remained on the same level of disorganization and an every day more declining
political system, it also remained without a model for development that revealed a better
future for Dominicans. It was then that ANJE decided to start working on the reform of
the State's powers, and began its concern to reform the Dominican electoral system going
through a strong crisis.
2
544-7914
P.04
Since 1994 to this date, ANJE has played a decisive role by being one of the main
proponents of the country's judicial reform process, and by leading a civic campaign that
has been considered by other American countries, as one of the most succesful
participation campaigns.
ANJE is currently one of the leader institutions in what has been called the Dominican
civil society, which considers it one of the most identified organizations with its
enhancement.
Twenty years after its foundation, ANJE's participation in national discussions is stronger
than ever before; since around one year ago it has used as a banner the imminent need for
the creation of a private social security system, with the worker's freedom of election.
There are high hopes on this project's approval.
ANJE is now working on a civic campaign for citizen's awareness regarding the benefits
that the capitalization and privatization of State owned companies will bring along, which
is a process that is taking course in the Dominican Republic.
Regarding the information and updating aspects of its members during these twenty years
of existance, the National Association of Young Businessmen has kept itself granting a
series of benefits that allows them to be up to date regarding new technological and
business techniques. Understanding that most Dominican enterprises are family owned,
ANJE has made an effort to train and educate its members on the challenges that these
types of companies confront.
3
P.05
ASOCIACION
NACIONAL
DE JOVENES
EMPRESARIOS
LISTADO DE PASADOS PRESIDENTES DE LA ASOCIACION
NACIONAL DE JOVENES EMPRESARIOS (ANJE)
NOMBRE
AÑO
COMPAÑIA
CARGO
ACTUAL
Marino Ginebra
1978/79
Seguros América
Vicep. Ejecutivo
Jorge Abott
1979/80
Abbott
Presidente
José ML Trullols
1980/81
Almadon
Vicep. Ejecutivo
Héctor Castro Noboa
1981-82
Grupo Financiero
Vicep. Ejecutivo
Nacional
José ML Varela
1982-83
General Electric
Presidente
Ramón Menéndez
1983-84
Central Romana
Vicep. Ejecutivo
José Florentino
1984-85
T. Cable Nacional
Presidente
Administrativo
Francisco Rodríguez
1985-86
La Antillana
Presidente
Comercial
Av. Lope de Vega
Esq. Ratael Augusto Sanchez
Edif. Plaza Intercanbe, Suite 313
Tels. 563-7018/567-3026
Fax: 565-4891, Sto. Dgo. A.D.
RNC: 4-01-50189-9
P.06
ASOCIACION
NACIONAL
DE JOVENES
EMPRESARIOS
Juan Herrera
1986-87
KPMG
Presidente
Jaime Bonetti
1987-88
Proteinas
Presidente-
Nacionales
Secretario
Frank Tejeda
1988-89
Grupo América
Vendedor
Ricardo Pellerano
1989-90
Pellerano &
Socio Gerente
Herrera
Elena Viyella
1990-91
Fersan
Vicep. Ejecutivo
Rafael Del Toro
1991-92
Banco Popular
Vicep. Admtivo
Presidencia
Juan Bancalari
1992-93
Bancalari & Asoc.
Presidente
María Isabel Gassó
1993-94
Empresas
Vicep. Planif.
Gassó Gassó
y Desarrollo
José Luis De Ramón
1994-95
De Ramón & Asoc.
Socio Principal
Irving Redondo
1995-96
Central Romana
Vicep. Finanzas
Av. Lope de Vaga
Esq. Ratael Augusto Sänchez
Edit Plaza Intercaribe, Suite 313
Tels.: 563-7018/567-3026
Fax: 565-4891. Sto. Dgo. RD.
RNC: 4-01-50189-9
544-7914
P.07
ASOCIACION
NACIONAL
DE JOVENES
EMPRESARIOS
José García
1996-97
Inmobiliaria
Presidente
García Armenteros
Eduardo Grullón
1997-98
La Universal de
Vicepresidente
Seguros
Ejecutivo
Ax. Lope de Vega
Esq. Refael Augusto Sanchez
Edit. Plaza Intercaribe, Suite 313
Tels.: 583-7018/567-3026
Fax: 565-4891, Sto. Dgo. R D.
RNC: 4-01-50189-9
December 17, 1998
Susan Anderson
Professor of Psychology
New York University
6 Washington Place #468
New York, NY 10003-6634
Dear Susan:
Thank you for the poem by George Santayana and
the articles about Americorps. Promoting volunteerism is
about very important Americorps' to this great administration. success! we We are are all excited working on a A hategy to
put more fores
Happy holidays and very best wishes for the new
year.
on Americans in
Sincerely,
me Caving year
Shiley Sagawa,
Melanne Verveer
the new depenty cus
Chief of Staff to
the First Lady
in am office
used to be me Exac.
Director
9 me
make sure she
Nates secrie
get 5 all gml
- Corp'n and
win hast. have
good ideas
Americang as
a key Comparent
9 he part folio-
So, Icee
R
New York University
A private university in the public service
Thank
Faculty of Arts and Science
Susan M. Andersen
Department of Psychology
Professor of Psychology
Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology
(Social Psychology and Clinical Psychology)
6 Washington Place, Suite 468
Tel: (212)998-7799
New York. NY 10003-6634
e-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (212) 998-7979
FAX:
(212) 995-4292
11/18/98
Dear Melanne- -
Given the extracioning successes and resolved the First
Lady in the last months, she likely needs little in
the wag of added Sustenance or prodding toward depth.
Still, the quirt, provocative beauty and wisdom of the
attached (by Santagana) has moved me many 2 time,
and So I pass it along. - To be sure, one could quibble
with assumptions about "trenth" and "history" (AS
objective fact), but for me this is Shill profoundly grounding
on another topiz, I've meant to irve to you about the
hopeful, stuming twins of events for AmeriCarps and its
future trajecting, refrected in the other 2 little prices
also attached. Hopefully, Sasan Stronds presence at
Rord will make continuing pactnerships selfle nove
fasible and pervinsive inke forseishle frame.
Hope you have well.
An best,
Sasen
Nothing is eternal in its duration
The tide of evolution carries everything
before it, thoughts no less than bodies,
and persons no less than nations. Yet all
things are eternal in their status
as truth is. The place which an event
fills in history is its inalienable place;
the character that an act or a feeling
possesses in passing is its inalienable
character.
To see things under the form of
eternity is to see them in their
historic and moral truth, not as
they seemed as they passed, but
as they remain when they are over.
The truth is cruel, but it can
be loved, and it makes free
those who have loved it.
George Santayana
OCTOBER 26, 1998
TIME
VOL. 152 NO. 17
THE WEEKLY NEWSMAGAZINE
NOTEBOOK
THE SCOOP
SUCCESS STORY
Clinton's Pet Program
Makes Many Friends
AT LEAST ONE GROUP IN WASHINGTON HAS
escaped the long arm of the LEWINSKY scan-
dal: AmeriCorps. The national service pro-
gram is a favorite of PRESIDENT CLINTON'S,
and its supporters were worried that it
might be a target for his congressional crit-
ics. But the four-year-old program has won
over skeptics by emphasizing its grass-roots
structure and its alliance with respected
nonprofit organiza-
CLIFF SCHIAPPA-AP
tions around the
country: Members
are selected by and
work for such
groups as Boys and
Girls Clubs of
America and Habi-
tat for Humanity.
Santorum
AmeriCorps pre-
vailed on a key Senate funding vote in July
by 58 to 37, winning over such former Re-
publican critics as RICK SANTORUM of
Pennsylvania and Daniel Coats of Indiana.
On Friday, Clinton will preside at 1 White
House swearing-in ceremony marking the
program's 100,000th member-a bench-
mark the Peace Corps took more than 20
24
years to reach. -By Adam Cohen/New York
EDITORIAL
C
BY DAVID GERGEN / EDITOR AT LARGE
The nation's new patriots
A generation of idealists shuns politics and turns instead to volunteering
he news these days suggests that America is now
tremendous cynicism about politics but not for doing
T
raising a generation of hellions: Two young men
something for their neighborhood or for children."
stand accused of brutally murdering a college kid in
Wofford's opinions are borne out by recent survey data.
Wyoming because he was gay; a 20-year-old girl
UCLA's mammoth survey of college freshmen found that
was found guilty of inducing her boyfriend, a cadet at the
last year's incoming class demonstrated the lowest levels
Air Force Academy, to kill another young woman whom
of political interest in the 32-year history of the poll, even
she detested; Eric Rudolph, hiding out in the Appalachian
as volunteer work was at record levels. A recent survey for
Mountains, is accused of planting that bomb at the Atlan-
Public Allies, a multicultural group supporting civic serv-
ta Olympics when he was 30; young punks show up on
ice, found that today's young people are very public spirit-
morning television shows with the damnedest personal
ed, but they are "actively looking for new and distinctive
stories. And on and on.
ways to connect to the people and
But as is so often the case, the real
issues surrounding them."
news is contained in the stories that
Contrary to myths
AmeriCorps is not the only or-
aren't snatching headlines. Last
ganization experiencing a surge in
week, for example, the four-year-old
that they are
interest. Teach for America, the vol-
AmeriCorps program inducted its
unteer program started nearly 10
100,000th volunteer. Nearly all the
slackers, gen X-ers
years ago by Wendy Kopp after she
young men and women are giving at
graduated from Princeton, receives
least a year of service to their coun-
are actually brimming
3,000 applications a year for 500
try. It's a remarkable feat: The Peace
slots. Some 10,000 apply to the
Corps took 20 years to reach the
with idealism.
Peace Corps for 3,500 places, and
same milestone.
young people often wait up to two
More to the point, almost every
years to gain a coveted spot.
one of these AmeriCorps volunteers
Each of these programs has its
has been weaving an important thread into the fabric of
critics but is building wider support. Republicans once
community life. In Clearwater, Fla., a young woman
bashed AmeriCorps as President Clinton's pet project,
named Sherry Thomas, who was living in the streets at the
but Senate conservatives like Rick Santorum and
age of 14, helps to build community playgrounds and
Charles Grassley now back it. Millard Fuller, the inspi-
assists in neighborhood cleanups as she prepares for a
rational figure behind Habitat for Humanity, was once a
career in law enforcement. Serving with Habitat for Hu-
skeptic, too, but, after seeing volunteers in action on
manity, Army veteran Phillip Wu and 22 other members
Habitat sites, has written enthusiastically about nation-
on his team recruited 1,500 college students to come to
al-service programs to House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Miami over a spring break to complete 50 new homes for
With 1 in 7 AmeriCorps members now serving in faith-
working families. Monisha Poudyal, a Yale graduate from
based projects, support for the program among religious
an immigrant family, worked for a year in California on
leaders has risen, too.
HIV and substance-abuse issues with at-risk kids. She is
None of this, however, should obscure the central
now pursuing a career in nonprofit management. A grad-
point: Contrary to myths that they are slackers, genera-
uate of Notre Dame, Robert Peters, joined the Sisters of
tion X-ers are actually brimming with idealism, far out-
Notre Dame AmeriCorps program and tutored migrant
stripping what we saw only a decade ago. Instead of
farm children and illiterate adults.
knocking young men and women, we ought to be pro-
Doing something good. "We are tapping into a new patrio-
viding more opportunities for them to give back. The
tism among young people," says Harris Wofford, the for-
day is not far off when a year or more of service to the
mer U.S. senator who now heads the Corporation for
country will once again be enshrined as an essential
National Service, which runs AmeriCorps. "They have a
part of becoming an American citizen.
USNIWSK WORLD REPORT. NOVEMBER 2. 1008
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 30, 1998
Andrew A. Athens
World President
World Council of Hellenes Abroad (SAE)
230 N. Michigan Ave., 7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Mr. Athens,
Thank you for sending me information about efforts by the World Council
of Hellenes Abroad (SAE) to establish additional primary care facilities in
Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Southern Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
Ensuring that all people have access to the medical care they require should be
one of the highest priorities of every country.
I congratulate SAE on its Primary Health Care Initiative and am confident
that its efforts will make a real difference in the lives of those people most in
need, particularly young children. I also commend SAE for making the new
medical facilities available to all people, irrespective of ethnic background.
Thank you again for letting me know of SAE's important work in the
primary health care area.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton