Community Engagement Impact Assessment Results

On This Page
Respondents
CE Involvement
CE Project Types
CE Attitudes
How are We Doing?

Respondents

Respondents by Position

Position Percentage
Staff 59.6%
Faculty 40.4%
Staff (59.6%)
Faculty (40.4%)

Showing percentage distribution (0-100%)

Respondents by College

Data collected prior to July 1, 2025.

College Percentage
CAAS 17.7%
CEHS 11.5%
CHaSS 8.9%
SCI 8.0%
BUS 6.9%
QCNR 5.2%
CAINE 5.1%
ENG 4.0%
STUDENT AFFAIRS 3.9%
VET 1.3%
LIBRARY 0.8%
OTHER 26.7%

 

CAAS

17.7%

CEHS

11.5%

CHaSS

8.9%

SCI

8.0%

BUS

6.9%

QCNR

5.2%

CAINE

5.1%

ENG

4.0%

SA

3.9%

VET

 

LIBRARY

 

OTHER

26.7%

Showing 0-30%

CE Involvement

64.8% of sample (n=840) indicated they were involved with CE in 2023-2024 year

Status Percentage
Involved 64.8%
Not Involved 35.2%

 

Involved (64.8%)
Not Involved (35.2%)

Showing percentage distribution (0-100%)

CE Involvement by Position

Position Involved Not Involved
Staff 54.7% 45.3%
Faculty 79.9% 20.1%

 

Staff

54.7%

Faculty

79.9%

CE Project Types

Project Type Count Percentage
Teaching 633 27%
Service 546 24%
Research 397 17%
Extension 371 17%
Co-curricular 319 14%
Librarianship 25 1%

 

Teaching

27%

Service

24%

Research

17%

Extension

17%

Co-curricular

14%

Librarianship

1%

Showing 0-30%

Number of CE Projects and Project Type by College

Among Faculty engaged in CE (n=418) below is the breakdown of number of CE projects and project type by college

Data collected prior to July 1, 2025.

College Research Teaching Service Extension Librarianship Co-Curricular
CAAS 57 109 61 131 0 31
CAINE 45 73 82 12 0 45
CEHS 31 51 54 16 0 17
CHaSS 42 58 38 9 0 19
SCIENCE 20 43 45 10 0 18
BUS 20 26 36 8 0 11
QCNR 32 14 13 16 0 4
ENG 17 3 10 0 0 3
VET 1 11 5 4 0 5
LIBRARY 1 2 1 0 8 0
OTHER 7 22 11 41 0 1

CAAS

CAINE

CEHS

CHaSS

SCIENCE

BUS

QCNR

ENG

VET

LIBRARY

OTHER

Research Teaching Service Extension Co-Curricular Librarianship

Showing number of total projects (0-400)

How CE Scholarship Recipients Felt About Their Work

Aspect Agreed Disagreed
Characterized by mutual benefit 84% 16%
Reflected reciprocity 72% 28%
Asset-based 82% 18%

 

Mutual benefit

84%

Reciprocity

72%

Asset-based

82%

Showing percentage who agreed (0-100%)

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of CE at USU

Statement Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
My community engagement is reciprocal; there is mutual benefit. 47.80% 33.20% 15.70% 1.60% 1.70%
USU's community engagement as a whole is reciprocal; there is mutual benefit. 43.10% 39.40% 14.40% 1.90% 1.30%
I am proud of USU's community engagement. 39.30% 35.80% 20.20% 2.90% 1.80%
USU, Utah's land-grant institution, is fulfilling its community engagement obligation. 32.10% 38.70% 24.20% 3.20% 1.80%
USU has dedicated resources to support faculty and staff community engagement. 23.40% 35.90% 30.50% 7.10% 3.10%
There is clear and visible leadership in community engagement at USU. 22.60% 33.80% 28.50% 12.10% 3.00%
Community engagement is a valued component of the Promotion and Tenure process. 22.00% 28.70% 34.70% 9.60% 5.10%
I have a good sense of the community-engaged work happening at USU. 13.50% 17.70% 29.50% 26.40% 13.00%
I understand how to designate a course as a "community-engaged learning" (CEL) course. 11.30% 14.30% 20.60% 33.50% 20.30%
I am aware of the Community-Engaged Scholars Network at USU. 11.30% 14.30% 20.60% 33.50% 20.30%

My community engagement is reciprocal; there is mutual benefit.

USU's community engagement as a whole is reciprocal; there is mutual benefit.

I am proud of USU's community engagement.

USU, Utah's land-grant institution, is fulfilling its community engagement obligation.

USU has dedicated resources to support faculty and staff community engagement.

There is clear and visible leadership in community engagement at USU.

Community engagement is a valued component of the Promotion and Tenure process.

I have a good sense of the community-engaged work happening at USU.

I understand how to designate a course as a "community-engaged learning" (CEL) course.

I am aware of the Community-Engaged Scholars Network at USU.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Showing response percentages (0-100%)

Community engagement is a valued component of the Promotion and Tenure Process

Regarding the item “Community engagement is a valued component of the Promotion and Tenure Process,” below are mean score breakdowns by faculty type (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).

Faculty Type Rating (0-5 scale)
Extension Faculty 4.30
Adjunct Faculty 4.13
TT Extension Faculty 3.79
Term Faculty 3.61
Other Faculty 3.49
TT/Tenured Faculty 3.34

 

Extension Faculty

4.30

Adjunct Faculty

4.13

TT Extension Faculty

3.79

Term Faculty

3.61

Other Faculty

3.49

TT/Tenured Faculty

3.34

0 = Strongly Disagree
5 = Strongly Agree

Overall Rating of USU's Community Engagement

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate USU’s community engagement overall?

By Group

Group Rating (1-10 scale)
Faculty 7.39
Staff 6.98
Statewide faculty & Staff 7.68
Logan faculty & Staff 7.05

 

Faculty

7.39

Staff

6.98

Statewide faculty & Staff

7.68

Logan faculty & Staff

7.05

Rating scale: 1-10

By College

Data collected prior to July 1, 2025.

College Rating (1-10 scale)
CAAS 7.66
CEHS 7.38
CHaSS 7.12
BUS 7.01
VET 7.00
CAINE 6.73
ENG 6.72
QCNR 6.52
STUDENT AFFAIRS 6.47
LIBRARY 6.32
OTHER 7.09

 

CAAS

7.66

CEHS

7.38

CHaSS

7.12

BUS

7.01

VET

7.00

CAINE

6.73

ENG

6.72

QCNR

6.52

STUDENT AFFAIRS

6.47

LIBRARY

6.32

OTHER

7.09

Rating scale: 1-10