© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 26, Number 3, p.

99, (2022)
Copyright © 2022 by the University of Georgia. eISSN 2164-8212

Higher Education Outreach via Student

Organizations: Students Leading the Way
Jennifer A. Jones and Elaine H. Giles

Abstract
Higher education outreach and engagement often occurs through
student volunteering. Student organizations are one understudied and
undertapped mechanism that facilitates such connections. We examined
the experience of student leaders of student organizations that promoted
volunteerism among their members. The mixed-methods study
included a survey (n = 26) and follow-up interviews (n = 5). We found
that participants’ organizations were highly involved in the community
and that participants gained valuable leadership skills in this role. We
also found that participants had relatively little insight concerning the
community partners’ experience of the collaboration. We identified
sampling as a unique challenge for this theoretical population and, in
the discussion, provide considerations and recommendations for future
scholars.
Keywords: volunteerism, service-learning, higher education, outreach,
engagement

I
nstitutions of higher education typi- dents who coordinate student volunteerism
cally engage in communities through through student organizations. We surveyed
a multitude of channels. Student and conducted follow-up interviews with
volunteer activities constitute an the service leaders of student organizations
important channel for community engaged in service at a large public univer-
engagement. Student volunteerism has a sity in the Southeastern United States. We
number of benefits for both the student found (a) participants’ organizations were
and the community. Students benefit by highly involved in the community, (b) par-
exposure to experiences that shape their ticipants gained valuable leadership skills in
personal and professional lives (Carlisle this role, and (c) participants had relatively
et al., 2017; Caswell, 2018; Whitekiller & little insight into the community partners’
Bang, 2018). Nonprofit and governmental experience of the collaboration. We also
organizations (also known as “community identified sampling as a unique challenge
partners”) benefit from unpaid labor, affili- for this theoretical population and, in the
ation with educational institutions, and an discussion, provide considerations and rec-
opportunity to recruit high-quality future ommendations for future scholars.
staff (Edwards et al., 2001). A wide body of
literature addresses student volunteerism as
service-learning—for example, as part of a Literature Review
directed learning activity (see, e.g., Jones
This literature review is divided into three
& Lee, 2017). However, students often also
volunteer through student organizations.parts. First, we present research related
to student organizations (SO) in higher
Very little is known about this form of stu-
dent volunteering. education. This step includes describing
the national dimensions of such SOs and
This article describes a mixed-methods identifying their role and their impact on
study examining the experiences of stu- students and the surrounding community.
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 100

Second, we present research related to stu- ership will be described in the following
dent volunteerism, including both benefits section.
and challenges. Third, we present research
related to the challenges of who should be SOs also play an important role in com-
responsible for SOs’ training and their ser- munity development within the institu-
vice endeavors. We conclude by identifying tion. The structure of SOs provides a way
research questions at the intersection of for students to meet and befriend like-
these bodies of literature and which were minded peers as well as peers they might
explored in this study. otherwise not have met. Consequently,
SOs also play an important role in helping
students develop psychosocial and lead-
Student Organizations in Higher
ership identities, particularly students of
Education
minoritized backgrounds (Ferrari et al.,
2010; Renn & Ozaki, 2010). These organi-
Overview zations can also increase both intra- and
SOs are organizations formed and operated interracial friendships among students
by students for an expressly stated purpose (Guiffrida, 2003; Park, 2014). Additionally,
as established by their student members. organizational membership can improve the
The first SO was the Oxford Union, es- overall campus experience of international
tablished in 1823; today, SOs are a staple students. International students benefit
on most college and university campuses service-learning in unique ways (Kwenani
(Arminio, 2015; Council for the Advancement & Yu, 2018), and SOs can minimize barriers
of Standards in Higher Education, 2015). to volunteering by, for example, providing
The missions of these organizations can group transportation and having peers help
vary widely and can focus on areas such as the international student address cultural
academics, service, arts, politics, identity, and language concerns.
or sports and recreation. Sororities and
fraternities are also considered SOs. These Finally, SOs also play an important role in
organizations typically have bylaws and a higher education community outreach. This
charter that codify the purpose of the or- is particularly true for land-grant universi-
ganization, the leadership structure, and ties that serve to “create engaged citizens,
the processes through which the general provide social mobility, and foster students’
student body may become involved (either commitment to democracy and service”
as members or through events). On most (Schuh et al., 2011, p. 63). SOs frequently
campuses, SOs are required to have a facultyhold community service as a primary or
advisor to provide behind-the-scenes di- secondary objective. Most campuses have a
rection and support. SOs are registered and service SO whose primary purpose is com-
overseen by the dean of students (or other munity service (Jacoby, 2015). Community
similar body). service in this case can include traditional
volunteering activities, such as helping an
animal shelter or food kitchen, as well as
Role
political and social activism, such as voter
SOs—also called campus organizations— registration and promoting civil rights.
typically fall under the purview of stu-
dent affairs professionals, and they play This community outreach function extends
an important role in multiple layers of beyond the local area: Students often con-
the community: professional development nect through their SOs to national and
for students as individuals, community international organizations. For example,
development within the institution, and, students may form a SO that supports the
germane to this article, informal higher mission of a national charity such as March
education community outreach. SOs play a of Dimes. Some national organizations,
role in students’ professional and personal including but not limited to fraternities
development (Council for the Advancement and sororities, provide financial or tech-
of Standards in Higher Education, 2015). nical support to SOs on college campuses
The process of starting and/or leading an (see, for example, American Association of
organization provides a long-term profes- University Women, n.d.; March of Dimes,
sional development opportunity, the fruits n.d.) This support advances the work of the
of which can be documented in a résumé SO, and it also brings resources to the local
and described to future employers. These community and builds students’ profes-
benefits related to community service lead- sional network and interpersonal skills.
101 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

Impact experiences at different levels of frequency,

duration, intensity, and level of commit-
The work of SOs impacts the students, the
college or university, and the local commu- ment. Cocurricular service activities exist
nity. Students involved in SOs are gener- in myriad places in higher education—SOs,
ally more academically successful; however, residential halls, living learning communi-
results of such involvement vary by race ties, orientation programs, first-year semi-
and gender (Baker, 2008). The college or nars, capstone courses, alternative break
university benefits because SOs increase service trips, scholarship programs like
connectivity among students, promote the Bonner Program, Federal Work-Study,
faculty–student interaction, and provide a campus ministries, study abroad programs,
low-cost, high-value contribution to stu- and sororities and fraternities (Jacoby, 2015;
dents’ social and professional development. Meisel, 2007). Among the many cocurricular
According to Rios-Aguilar et al. (2015), one service options, alternative break experi-
in four university first-year students re- ences and the Bonner Scholars program
ported being involved in student-led orga- are two of the most commonly studied. In
nizations during their first year in college. 2015, three experts on alternative break
Imagine that all these students involved in programs coauthored Working Side by Side:
a SO participated in one cocurricular service Creating Alternative Breaks as Catalysts for
experience. The local community benefits Global Learning, Student Leadership, and Social
because SOs frequently promote and create Change (Sumka et al., 2015). The book not
opportunities for members to volunteer in only reviews best practices for construct-
the community, such as raising money for a ing a successful alternative break program
local cause, hosting food or clothing drives but also explores student learning gains.
for a local cause, and providing individual Additionally, the Bonner Foundation team
or group volunteers for service projects. have authored a number of articles and
Because these SOs exist beyond the tenure publications about the impact of the Bonner
of the individual students, relationships be- Program, its evolution, and the field of
tween SOs and community partners can po- campus–community engagement (The
tentially span years or even decades. Thus, Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation,
it is worth examining student volunteerism n.d.). Although alternative break trips and
through SOs as a form of higher education the Bonner Program have been studied,
outreach. scant research exists on how autonomous
SOs and their leaders prepare, engage, and
make meaning from their cocurricular ser-
Student Volunteerism and Service-
vice experience.
Learning
Students volunteer for a variety of reasons, Student volunteerism provides a number
including to gain professional experience, of benefits. Volunteering experiences can
to fulfill a class requirement, to fulfill a provide professional development opportu-
requirement for membership in a SO such nities, a chance to exercise leadership, and
as a sorority or fraternity, and to develop a exposure to careers and people they would
professional network (Carlisle et al., 2017; have otherwise not had. All of these factors
Mitchell & Rost-Banik, 2019). Of all these can have a positive impact on the trajec-
motivations, volunteering as part of a course tory of students’ personal and professional
requirement—also known as service-learn- lives (Carlisle et al., 2017; Caswell, 2018;
ing—is arguably the most closely studied. Whitekiller & Bang, 2018). The organizations
In fact, multiple academic journals and through which students volunteer—typical-
conferences are dedicated to the study of ly nonprofit and government organizations
often called “community partners”—can
service-learning (e.g., The Journal of Service-
also benefit. Examples of these benefits
Learning in Higher Education, The International
Journal for Research on Service-Learning and include access to unpaid labor, affiliation
Community Engagement, and The Michigan with the college or university that can lead
Journal of Community Service Learning). to future opportunities, and, in some cases,
an opportunity to screen and recruit future
A smaller amount of scholarly literature staff (Edwards et al., 2001).
addresses cocurricular service in the acad-
emy. In her book Service-Learning Essentials, This literature would be incomplete with-
Barbara Jacoby (2015) mentioned that in- out a discussion of the numerous challenges
stitutions should offer a wide range of cur- related to service-learning. For students,
ricular and cocurricular service-learning mandated service experiences can be per-
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 102

ceived negatively (Henney et al., 2017) and member advisor, the relationship between
potentially decrease student motivations the SOs and their advisors can vary from in-
(Beehr et al., 2010). Service-learning as cur-tegral to nonexistent. Kane (2017) attributes
rently practiced often reinforces a colonizer this disjointed relationship to history: Early
mindset and dynamic, strains town–gown student organizations were formed to step
relations, and may reinforce the very social away from the structure and demands of the
ills students and faculty attempt to address university. Student activities departments
(Hernandez, 2018; Smaller & O’Sullivan, (or similar bodies) have the institutional
2018). Additionally, lower income students responsibility to establish and enforce poli-
who work one or more jobs may not have cies for SOs, but those departments usually
time to volunteer and thus lose a résumé- lack sufficient staff to deeply and intention-
building opportunity (Gage & Thapa, 2012). ally advise all SOs. Further, not all college
For community partners, challenges include faculty and staff members who might serve
lower quality work, costs associated with as advisors have a student development
volunteer administration, risks related to background to help SOs succeed, much less
safety and community relations, and dif- knowledge about cocurricular service expe-
ficulties associated with scheduling (Skulan, riences. Kane (2017) reported that many SO
2018). advisors learned how to advise through trial
and error. We acknowledge that trial and
Who Should Be Responsible for Preparing error can be a great teaching tool; however,
SOs for Cocurricular Service? it should not be used when training students
to work with community partners where the
Student preparedness for service is a known stakes are higher.
challenge and issue for both curricular and
cocurricular experiences. SOs sometimes In Service-Learning Essentials, Jacoby (2015)
do not have the guidance and support of mentioned that a best practice for curricular
service-learning courses, first-year semi- and cocurricular service-learning experi-
nars, or capstone projects, which provide ences is for the service-learning center (or
a knowledgeable faculty or staff member similar center, such as a campus volunteer
and a structured set of expectations. Jacoby center) to provide training and guidance to
(2015) mentioned a lack of intentional ad- other campus entities who engage in ser-
vising and mentorship support as one of the vice work. However, many of these centers
challenges with cocurricular service experi- may be understaffed, supported by one
ences. Specifically, advisors of cocurricular full-time staff member and student staff
service experiences are “walking a fine line (Jacoby, 2015). With a campus of 1,000 SOs,
between maintaining accountability to out- a single staff member cannot provide ad-
comes and partnerships on the one hand and equate training and support to all SOs while
allowing students the latitude to make and also managing other aspects of the center.
learn from mistakes on the other” (p. 124). Conversely, campus volunteer centers may
have the staff but lack the bandwidth to pro-
Although the SO leaders who coordinate vide extra training. Their centers’ portfolio
the cocurricular service initiatives should may have large initiatives and programs
oversee the training of their peers’ service such as the Bonner Program and alternative
experiences, SO leaders may choose not to break experiences that require high amounts
engage their peers in education and reflec- of staff oversight. For example, the Bonner
tion. One reason is that their peers may Program has cohorts of no more than five to
find it too rigorous for an activity that is 40 students whose participation in service is
supposed to be cocurricular (Meisel, 2007). closely evaluated and assessed (The Corella
Unlike alternative break programs where a and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, n.d.).
staff member can help facilitate the tension Additionally, a hefty financial component
between the student leaders and their peers, comes with being a Bonner Scholar. Given
autonomous SOs may not have that kind of the financial incentive, intense program
support. Lacking appropriate education, evaluation, and small cohorts of students,
training, and reflection, SO participants may institutions have invested significant human
not know enough about the communities resources for oversight of the Bonner expe-
they are serving with and cause uninten- riences, which may not leave them time to
tional harm (Meisel, 2007). invest in other students’ service experiences
(Meisel, 2007). Similarly, alternative break
Although educational institutions require programs require a huge human resource
that SOs have a designated faculty or staff investment. According to Break Away (the
103 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

national headquarters for alternative break questions, we used a mixed-methods ex-

programs), 95% of alternative break pro- planatory design (Creswell & Plano Clark,
grams reported some sort of staff involve- 2011). First, we surveyed the leaders of SOs
ment in the creation and execution of the engaged in service activities at a large public
alternative break program. Similarly, 61% of university in the Southeastern United States.
alternative break programs had a full-time Then, we conducted follow-up interviews.
staff member who devoted 10–40 hours or Data from the survey and interviews were
more per week to the program (Break Away, analyzed separately and then compared.
2019). If campus volunteer center staff The study was approved by the Institutional
didn’t have these large initiatives to over- Review Board at the University of Florida.
see, they would have more time to dedicate
to training SOs and their leaders to create Sampling
quality cocurricular service experiences.
The theoretical population was on-campus
What about community partners them- SOs engaged in service activities. We estab-
selves? In their study, Tryon and Madden lished two for inclusion in the study: being
(2019) shared that community partners are a student who was either (a) president of a
quick to point out that their staff are the best student service organization or (b) serving
to provide training, as they have the most in a volunteer chair or community service
up-to-date knowledge. However, commu- officer position. However, this popula-
nity partners may lack time for advanced tion proved difficult to sample, and, in the
student preparation, and the university may Discussion section of this article, we address
not have the funding to compensate their issues and provide suggestions for future
staff for this extra work (Tryon & Madden, research.
2019).
We collected email addresses via the uni-
Thus many universities lack the capacity versity’s online directory and management
to provide or are not providing for all SOs system. This system categorizes the SOs
the developmental learning experiences re- (e.g., service organizations, fraternities/
quired for cocurricular service experiences. sororities/etc.) and lists contact informa-
Nonetheless, thousands of college students tion for the organizations’ officers. As of
can participate in cocurricular service on December 2018, there were approximately
their own initiative. Without proper quality 1,000 registered SOs on this campus. All stu-
control, education, training, and reflection dents who met the criteria were included in
as part of the cocurricular service experi- the survey (n = 203).
ence, some SO volunteers may cause un-
intentional harm through their service by The first round of purposive sampling was
being underprepared, not showing up, or through a series of three emails sent to the
reinforcing negative stereotypes. university email addresses of the 203 stu-
dents who fit the criteria. In response to a
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to lower than expected response rate from the
explore the experience of students who vol- initial sampling, we advertised the study
unteer through SOs. Our research questions via Facebook pages these student leaders
were as follows: would likely follow (i.e., university-based
service-learning-oriented Facebook pages)
• What are common challenges faced and through announcements in courses that
in collaborations between student emphasize service-learning.
organizations and community part-
ners? We received a total of 38 responses, 26 of
which were complete and usable (13% re-
• What are some traits of success- sponse rate). At the end of the survey stu-
ful collaborations between student dents were asked if they were willing to be
organizations and community part- part of a focus group. Of the 26 respondents,
ners? five agreed to be contacted for a focus group.
• What is the leadership capacity of Because of this low number of volunteers,
we transitioned from focus groups to inter-
the student leaders and SOs?
views. Four of the five students responded
to scheduling requests and were interviewed
Research Design and Methodology for this study.

To address the aforementioned research The final sample included leaders represent-
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 104

ing a wide range of organizational missions, with most groups participating in service
including fraternities and sororities, human projects on a monthly (46%) or weekly
service–oriented groups, and political and (31%) basis. Fifteen percent participated in
leadership-oriented groups. Eighty-eight service daily, and only 8% participated on
percent of the participants held formal posi- a semesterly basis. Eighty-eight percent of
tions in their service organization, including the organizations focused on group projects,
president/executive director (54%), com- and 12% engaged in a combination of indi-
munity service chair (15%), public relations vidual and group projects.
officer (4%), or another similar function,
All participants indicated they could easily
such as event coordinator or ambassador.
find service opportunities that were a good
fit, and 83% indicated there is always some-
Data Collection and Analysis thing for their members to do (see Table 1).
First, we developed and administered a 29- Additionally, 83% reported their members
item survey (see Appendix A). The survey engage in learning about the community
was organized in four parts related to the partner social issues they are addressing
research questions: general processes, suc- prior to performing service. Only 50% indi-
cessful collaborations, challenging collabo- cated their members participated in a train-
rations, and leadership capacity. The survey ing by the community partners, and 58%
included a mix of open- and close-ended engaged in some sort of debriefing process.
questions. Data from close-ended questions Notably, only 25% of respondents believed
were analyzed with descriptive statistics their members would not engage in service
using SPSS software. Data from open-ended without the group, and 92% openly en-
questions were coded thematically using an couraged members to engage in individual,
emergent coding process (Saldaña, 2009). long-term service opportunities.
The survey was distributed January and
February 2019. When asked how much time they estimated
a community partner must spend in prepa-
Next, we developed a semi-structured in- ration for their group’s service project, 42%
terview protocol (see Appendix B) and con- of participants indicated less than one hour,
ducted four follow-up interviews in March 42% indicated between one and three hours,
and April 2019. These interviews were con- and 17% indicated between 3 and 5 hours.
ducted either in person or over the phone,
were recorded, and lasted 20–30 minutes.
Successful Collaborations
Interviews were summarized, and the sum-
maries were analyzed thematically (Patton, Participants were asked to reflect upon a
2002) to identify insights related to the re- particularly successful collaboration and
search questions. identify what might have contributed to
that success. Most of these collaborations
involved one to 10 students (44%) or 11 to
Findings 20 students (56%), with fewer being 31 to
This section is divided into five parts. In 50 students (11%) or more than 50 (11%).
the first four, we report survey findings Participants were asked to rate the fit of the
related to (1) general processes SOs follow community partner for what their members
in engaging with community partners, (2) wanted out of a volunteer experience. Rating
highly successful collaborations, (3) chal- was on a 0–10 scale where 10 indicated the
lenging or unsuccessful collaborations, and “best fit ever.” As would be expected for a
(4) participants’ leadership capacity and successful partnership, most of the sample
development as it relates to leading service rated fit highly, either as a 10 (22%), 9
projects. Finally, we present three insights (11%), or 8 (33%). Eleven percent rated the
identified through the follow-up interviews. fit as a 7, and, surprisingly, 22 percent rated
the fit as a 4. This result suggests it is pos-
General Processes sible to have a successful collaboration even
without a so-called perfect fit.
Most (88.5%) of the sample considered
service to be their group’s primary purpose, When planning for these successful collabo-
and 11.5% considered it to be a secondary rations, 40% of the sample began planning
purpose. (Here and throughout, percent- more than 4 weeks in advance. Thirty per-
ages often do not total 100 due to rounding.) cent began planning 3 weeks in advance, and
These groups were heavily active in service, 30% began planning 2 weeks in advance.
105 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

Table 1. Participants’ Reporting of Interaction With Community Partner

Strongly Disagree/
Neutral/Not
Agree/ Strongly
Applicable
Agree Disagree
Our organization has a strong working
relationship with a staff member of our 67% 17% 17%
community partners.
Our organization logs or documents
75% 17% 8%
members’ service experiences.
I can easily find service opportunities that
are a good fit for my student organization’s 100% 0% 0%
members.
When I serve with a community partner,
there is always something for my 83% 17% 0%
organization to do.
My student organization and I engage in
learning about the community partner or
83% 8% 8%
the social issue they address prior to doing
service.
My organization’s members participate
in an orientation or training given by the 50% 42% 8%
community partner prior to service.
My organization members debrief the
experience and apply what they have 58% 25% 17%
learned to other service experiences.
My organization members typically feel
83% 17% 0%
well prepared prior to engaging in service.

I believe my members would not serve on

25% 34% 42%
their own without the group experience.

I would be open to encouraging my

members to engage in individual long-
92% 8% 0%
term service opportunities as opposed to
group projects.
Note. Some percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

Challenging Collaborations 5 (29%), 4 (14%), and even 1 (14%). This

result indicates it is possible to have a chal-
Participants were asked to reflect upon a
lenging collaborative experience even with
particularly challenging or unsuccessful
a good fit.
collaboration and identify what might have
contributed to the challenges experienced. When planning for this challenging col-
Most of these collaborations involved one laboration, most (67%) planned more
to 10 students (71%), with fewer involving than 4 weeks in advance. Seventeen per-
11 to 20 (14%) or 21 to 30 (14%). cent planned 2 weeks in advance, and 17%
planned less than one week in advance.
Participants were asked to rate the fit of the
community partner for what their members
wanted out of a volunteer experience. Seven Leadership Capacity
participants responded to this section. The Prior to their current leadership role in a SO,
answers included a wide range of ratings participants had exercised or learned about
on the same 0–10 scale as the successful leadership through an average of 2.9 differ-
collaboration: 10 (14%), 8 (14%), 7 (14%), ent functions, including serving as a mentor
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 106

to youth (86% of respondents), serving as students preferred to commit to service

a leader in a different youth organization opportunities with only a week’s notice,
(71%), working in a teaching position (57%), leaving a very short planning window for
taking a leadership course (43%), and work- the organization. Only one participant iden-
ing in a supervisory position (29%). tified the town–gown disconnect, and this
participant indicated they were grateful to
Most participants (89%) indicated that the be able to improve town–gown relations
experience of coordinating student volun- through their members’ service. One student
teers increased their leadership capacity. did indicate that her nonprofit management
Only 66% indicated they were adequately courses helped her understand the non-
prepared for the role. See Table 2. profit’s perspective; however, when asked,
she did not describe the types of activities
Insights From the Interviews or protocols nonprofits would need to have
in place in order to facilitate group volun-
Here we list the key insights identified
teering.
through the four follow-up interviews we
conducted. Third, participants felt the experience of
leading their peers in service was reward-
First, coordinating students is difficult.
ing and personally enriching. As one said,
Participants reported that students often
“I learned way more than I expected.”
were slow to respond, did not check email or
They described learning about how to lead
complete waivers, and sometimes dropped
and manage their peers, communicate with
out of service commitments at the last
strangers, and stay organized. They also
minute. Leading in this context is con-
described learning about the organizations
founded by two factors: There was no way to
in which they provided service. Volunteering
discipline or punish students for noncom-
in multiple organizations was described by
pliance, and sometimes the volunteers were
one participant as “an education about the
close friends of the participant, making it
world.”
even harder to hold students accountable.
Participants reported they learned over time
how to lead in this context and did not have Discussion
these skills prior to beginning their role.
This study examined student volunteerism
Second, students have little understanding through SOs. The research questions were
of what goes into coordinating a service as follows: (a) What are common chal-
project from the nonprofits’ perspective. lenges faced in collaborations between
When asked how organizations prepare, student organizations and community
most suggested activities like getting sup- partners? (b) What are some traits of suc-
plies and printing waivers. In general, there cessful collaborations between student or-
was little recognition of the time and money ganizations and community partners? and
it takes to process volunteer applications, (c) What is the leadership capacity of the
identify and plan for a group service project, student leaders and SOs? These questions
or clean up and provide recognition after- were addressed through a mixed-methods
ward. Additionally, participants indicated study that included a survey (n = 26) and

Table 2. Participants’ Reporting of Their Leadership Development

Strongly Disagree/
Neutral/Not
Agree/ Strongly
Applicable
Agree Disagree

I feel that the experience of coordinating

student volunteers has increased my 89% 11% 0%
leadership capacity.

I feel that I was adequately prepared for

66% 33% 0%
this leadership role.*

*Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

107 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

follow-up interviews (n = 5). In this section issues with transportation, and may or may
we first discuss issues with sampling and not bring the level of professionalism or
provide suggestions for future researchers. expertise community partners need (Jones,
Then, we discuss the findings and integrate Giles, & Carroll, 2019; Skulan, 2018). Some
them into the existing literature. Third, we of these challenges may be mitigated when
identify potential best practices and offer students are engaged in directed service-
recommendations for higher education pro- learning experiences, such as through a
fessionals. Finally, we address limitations class or campus volunteer center. In these
and conclude by explaining the significance cases, the faculty or staff member may be
of the study. able to provide some training or guidance
to students in order to improve outcomes
Difficulties in Sampling This Theoretical for both the student and the community
Population partner. However, SOs frequently operate
independently and do not have the support
The original sample was 203 students, yet of a trained campus-based professional. It
we were able to recruit only 28 (13%) into is likely, therefore, that community partners
the study. This response rate is lower than will find SOs more challenging to work with
general survey response rates (Baruch & compared to more structured service-learn-
Holtom, 2008), and it probably reflects a ing opportunities. Alternatively, because
unique sampling challenge of this popu- of the regularity of these groups and their
lation. Student leaders of SOs are likely to perpetuation over time, SOs may provide a
be time challenged. Their leadership role consistent stream of volunteers valued by
suggests they excel in a number of areas, community partners. Both of these scenarios
and their role in coordinating students is are probably at play depending largely on
indicative of their deep engagement. In the stability and size of the SO (i.e., larger,
other words, we were sampling a subgroup more stable SOs may provide a more consis-
of students who already have heavy de- tent and well-prepared cadre of volunteers
mands on their time. Additionally, our ini- over the years compared to smaller SOs). Of
tial sampling was conducted through email course, at this stage these are just conjec-
and, anecdotally, we have found that many tures. More research is needed.
students seldom check their university email
account. In fact, one of the interviewees
for this study, a student leader who coor- Learning Opportunity for Higher
dinates more than 4,000 hours of service Education Professionals
each semester, said she had to get better at If we categorize volunteering through SOs
checking email more regularly in order to as a form of higher education community
be successful in her role. Future research- engagement and outreach, it is important
ers should consider these sampling chal- for higher education professionals to think
lenges when studying student volunteering about how this unique activity could be
through SOs. We suggest offering incentives improved. First, we suggest higher educa-
for participation and identifying strategies tion professionals consider providing more
such as partnering with the student affairs support to SOs engaged in higher education
office or even administering the survey outreach. The foundational step in provid-
during a student affairs training provided ing that support is building more intentional
to student club leaders. Creativity and con- relationships with these SOs.
venience will likely be key.
SOs may benefit if student affairs profes-
sionals or SO faculty advisors spend more
Discussion of Findings and Integration time teaching SO officers management
With Literature and supervision skills. As our interview-
SOs are engaged in volunteer activity that ees described, student leaders often learn
furthers their organization’s mission and through trial and error how to lead their
provides a link between campuses and the peers and hold their SO accountable to its
communities in which they are located. We goals. However, when an outside entity like
know from service-learning literature that a community partner is involved and reli-
student volunteerism can be both beneficial ant on SOs to supply volunteers, the stakes
to the community partner and challeng- are much higher. Our data suggest students
ing (Beehr et al., 2010; Carlisle et al., 2017; do not appreciate the impact of not sup-
Mitchell & Rost-Banik, 2019; Skulan, 2018). plying enough volunteers or not holding
Students have unique scheduling needs, their members accountable to their service
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 108

commitments. The wakeup call comes, as Limitations

some of our interviewees described, when
This study has a number of limitations, the
community partners remove the SO from most important of which is the sample. We
their volunteer schedules for the semester. studied the student leaders of SOs at one
Community partners can develop a nega- large public university in the Southeastern
tive view of the institution’s student body United States. The study also collected self-
through a negative experience working reported data and thus is susceptible to
with a SO, which can harm the town–gown voluntary response bias, nonresponse bias,
relationship. Because many SOs are self- and social desirability bias (Patton, 2002).
governed and SO faculty advisor involve- Future research should consider other data
ment can vary widely, SOs often do not have collection methods (such as participant ob-
structured mentorship or supervision from servation) to help mitigate such bias.
someone who has extensive experiences
serving or working alongside community Finally, this study collected data about stu-
partners and can advise on how to manage dents’ perceptions of their experience lead-
their peers through these experiences. ing other students in their SOs to participate
in volunteer service. We did not address the
We also encourage higher education pro- perspective of the community organizations.
fessionals to work with their colleagues in Research suggests there can be a mismatch
service-learning/volunteer centers or with between student interest and the needs of
reputable community partners to find ways community organizations (Jones, Giles, &
to educate SOs on the processes that enable Carroll, 2019); in this study, it is possible
community partners to plan and implement that students’ assessment of successful or
a service project. This training would give challenging projects differs from the com-
student leaders a better sense of the time- munity organizations’ assessment. Future
line they need to establish for their peers to research should address this missing piece.
coordinate a service project. It would also
be helpful to educate SOs on the needs of
the community and the number of indi- Conclusion
vidual service opportunities available. This
This article addressed a gap in the literature:
information would better enable students to
higher education engagement and outreach
craft their service opportunities around the
that occurs through informal volunteering
needs of the community rather than student
of students through student organizations
preferences.
(SOs). Although we had some degree of
Additionally, student affairs professionals difficulty accessing the study population,
and their colleagues in service-learning/ what we found should inform future stud-
volunteer centers can work together to ies. Specifically, we found that at least some
identify SOs who may not have a primary percentage of student organizations were
or secondary focus on service but can meet heavily engaged in service, coordinating
a community need. For example, they could these service experiences functioned as a
connect a SO that has focus on STEM to the leadership development opportunity for
local school district for tutoring opportuni- student leaders, and participants had rela-
ties in science and math. tively little insight into the experience of the
volunteering activity for community partner
Finally, SOs who perform service with com- agencies. This finding suggests that colleges
munity partners often fly under the radar and universities—particularly the student
when institutions measure the quantitative affairs offices—can play a role in educat-
and qualitative impact colleges and univer- ing and training student organizations to
sities have on their surrounding commu- engage in best practices related to volun-
nities. This data is likely currently under- teering, including communicating with
reported in accrediting documents such as community partners, preparing their mem-
The Carnegie Foundation’s Classification bers to be punctual and effective volunteers,
for Community Engagement or those pro- and recognizing efforts of the community
vided by the Association for Advancement of partners to make the service opportunity
Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). possible. We also urge future researchers to
Better documentation systems would be study student volunteerism through SOs and
helpful in capturing and capitalizing on this to examine the dynamic from the perspec-
data. tive of the community partner.
109 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Lena N. Desmond for her technical contributions to this manu-
script.

About the Authors

Jennifer A. Jones, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of nonprofit leadership and management at the
University of Florida.
Elaine Giles is an extension agent in 4-H youth development with the University of Florida
Institute of Food Agricultural Sciences Extension.
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 110

References
American Association of University Women. (n.d.). AAUW student organizations. https://
ww3.aauw.org/what-we-do/campus-programs/student-org/
Arminio, J. (2015). Campus activities programs: CAS contextual statement. In Council
for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, CAS professional standards for
higher education (9th ed., p. 86).
Baker, C. N. (2008). Under-represented college students and extracurricular involve-
ment: The effects of various student organizations on academic performance. Social
Psychology of Education, 11(3), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-007-9050-y
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rates and trends in organizational re-
search. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863
Beehr, T. A., LeGro, K., Porter, K., Bowling, N. A., & Swader, W. M. (2010). Required
volunteers: Community volunteerism among students in college classes. Teaching of
Psychology, 37(4), 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986283.2010.510965
Break Away. (2019). National Alternative Break Survey: Report of the 2018–2019 academic
year [PowerPoint slides]. Break Away. http://alternativebreaks.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/10/2019-National-Alternative-Break-Survey-Report.pdf
Carlisle, S. K., Gourd, K., Rajkhan, S., & Nitta, K. (2017). Assessing the impact of commu-
nity-based learning on students: The community based learning impact scale (CBLIS).
Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 4–22. https://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/
index.php/jslhe/article/view/104
Caswell, T. (2018). Psychology of poverty: Attitude change via service-learning. Journal of
Service-Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25–34. https://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/index.
php/jslhe/article/view/143
The Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation. (n.d.). The Bonner Program. http://www.
bonner.org/the-bonner-program
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). CAS professional
standards for higher education (9th ed.).
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Edwards, B., Mooney, L., & Heald, C. (2001). Who is being served? The impact of student
volunteering on local community organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
30(3), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001303003
Ferrari, J. R., Cowman, S. E., & Milner, L. A. (2010). A pilot assessment of student leader
involvement in student organizations: Be true to your school. Journal of Catholic Higher
Education, 29(2), 215–226. https://jche.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/jche/article/
view/588/519
Gage, R. L., III, & Thapa, B. (2012). Volunteer motivations and constraints among
college students: Analysis of the volunteer function inventory and leisure con-
straints models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 405–430. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0899764011406738
Guiffrida, D. A. (2003). African American student organizations as agents of social inte-
gration. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1353/
csd.2003.0024
Henney, S. M., Hackett, J. D., & Porreca, M. R. (2017). Involuntary volunteerism: What
happens when you require people to “do good”? Journal of Service-Learning in Higher
Education, 6(1), 49–61. https://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/index.php/jslhe/article/view/126
Hernandez, K. (2018). Can the subaltern be seen? Photographic colonialism in service
learning. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-
17-00051
Jacoby, B. (2015). Service-learning essentials. Jossey-Bass.
111 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

Jones, D. O., & Lee, J. (2017). A decade of community engagement literature: Exploring past
trends and future implications. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
21(3), 165–180. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1351
Jones, J. A., Giles, E., & Carroll, E. (2019). Student volunteers in a college town: Burden
or lifeblood for the voluntary sector? Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education, 9,
Article 182. https://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/index.php/jslhe/article/view/182
Kane, C. (2017). Advancing student leader development through student organization
advising and institutional support. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2017(155),
59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20250
Kwenani, D. F., & Yu, X. (2018). Maximizing international students’ service-learning and
community engagement experiences: A case study of student voices on the benefits
and barriers. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(4), 29–52. https://
openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1416
March of Dimes. (n.d.). National serivce partnerships. https://www.marchofdimes.org/
volunteers/national-service-partners.aspx
Meisel, W. (2007). Connected cocurricular service with academic inquiry: A movement
toward civic engagement. Liberal Education (Spring). https://sail.cnu.edu/omeka/files/
original/38d9fae8fa1748537a38e955a811d846.pdf
Mitchell, T. D., & Rost-Banik, C. (2019). How sustained service-learning experiences
inform career pathways. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25(1), 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.102
Park, J. J. (2014). Clubs and the campus racial climate: Student originations and interracial
friendship in college. Journal of College Student Development, 55(7), 641–660. https://
doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0076
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative inquiry and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Renn, K. A., & Ozaki, C. C. (2010). Psychosocial and leadership identities among leaders
of identity-based student organizations. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(1),
14–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018564
Rios-Aguilar, C., Eagan, K., & Stolzenberg, E. B. (2015). Findings from the 2015 administra-
tion of the Your First College Year (YFCY) survey. Higher Education Research Institute.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., Harper, S. R., & Associates. (2011). Student services: A handbook
for the profession (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Skulan, N. (2018). Staffing with students: Digitizing campus newspapers with student
volunteers at the University of Minnesota, Morris. Digital Library Perspectives, 34(1),
32–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-07-2017-0024
Smaller, H., & O’Sullivan, M. (2018). International service learning: Decolonizing pos-
sibilities? Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 6(1), 1–23. https://journals.
sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/jgcee/article/view/175/367
Sumka, S., Porter, M. C., & Piacitelli, J. (2015). Working side by side: Creating alternative
breaks as catalysts for global learning, student leadership, and social change. Stylus.
Tryon, E., & Madden, H. (2019). Actualizing critical commitments for community engage-
ment professionals. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 23(1), 57–79.
https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1429
Whitekiller, V., & Bang, E. (2018). Changes in attitudes toward older adults through
bachelor of social work service-learning projects. Journal of Service-Learning in Higher
Education, 7(1), 63–77. https://journals.sfu.ca/jslhe/index.php/jslhe/article/view/155
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 112

Appendix A: Survey

1. What is your student organization’s name?

2. What is your position within your organization?

General Processes
3. Would you consider service a primary or secondary focus of your student
organization?
a. Primary
b. Secondary
4. How frequently does your student organization participate in service activities?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. Semesterly
e. A few times a year
5. A community partner is an organization with which you serve. This can be
a nonprofit organization or a government agency, including a public school.
Approximately how many community partners does your organization serve with
during the academic year?
6. Briefly describe the process your organization goes through prior to organizing a
service activity. What specific steps do you take between the time you decide to
offer a service opportunity and when the opportunity is complete?
7. List the names of the community partners your organization has served with this
past academic year.
8. Most of your organization’s volunteer service projects are:
a. Individual student projects
b. Group projects
c. A combination of individual and group projects
9. Please select the option that represents your organization’s experience working
with community partners: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree, Not Applicable
a. Our organization has a strong working relationship with a staff member of our
community partners.
b. Our organization logs or documents members’ service experiences.
c. I can easily find service opportunities that are a good fit for my student
organization’s members.
d. When I serve with a community partner, there is always something for my
organization to do.
e. My student organization and I engage in learning about the community
partner or the social issue they address prior to doing service.
f. My organization’s members participate in an orientation or training given by
the community partner prior to service.
g. My organization members debrief the experience and apply what they have
learned to other service experiences.
h. My organization members typically feel well prepared prior to engaging in
service.
i. I believe my members would not serve on their own without the group experi-
ence.
j. I would be open to encouraging my members to engage in individual long-
term service opportunities as opposed to group projects.
113 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

10. How much preparation time do you think a community partner has to do in order
to be ready for your group?
a. < 1 hour
b. 1–3 hours
c. 3–5 hours
d. 5 hours or more

Successful Collaborations
11. Take a moment to reflect on a successful collaboration between your student
organization and a community partner. Please describe the collaboration and
explain why you consider it successful. Now, answer the following questions
while thinking about that collaboration.
12. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being “best fit ever,” how would you rate the fit
between what the community partner needed and what your members wanted
out of a volunteer experience?
13. What preparation did you or your group engage in prior to this collaboration?
14. How did that community partner prepare to work with you and your group?
15. What might have made the experience even better?
16. How far in advance did your student organization begin planning to volunteer
with that community partner?
a. Less than one week in advance
b. One week in advance
c. Two weeks in advance
d. Three weeks in advance
e. Four weeks in advance
f. More than four weeks in advance
17. How many students participated in that collaboration?
a. 1–10
b. 11–20
c. 21–30
d. 31–50
e. 51+

Challenging Collaborations
18. Take a moment to reflect on a frustrating collaboration between your student
organization and a community partner. Please describe the collaboration and
explain what was frustrating. Now, answer the following questions while think-
ing about that collaboration.
19. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being “best fit ever,” how would you rate the fit
between what the community partner needed and what your members wanted
out of a volunteer experience?
20. What preparation did you or your group engage in prior to this collaboration?
21. How did that community partner prepare to work with you and your group?
22. What might have made the experience better?
23. How far in advance did your student organization begin planning to volunteer
with that community partner?
a. Less than one week in advance
b. Once week in advance
c. Two weeks in advance
 Vol. 26, No. 3—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 114

d. Three weeks in advance

e. Four weeks in advance
f. More than four weeks in advance
24. How many students participated in that collaboration?
a. 1–10
b. 11–20
c. 21–30
d. 31–50
e. 51

Leadership Capacity
25. I feel that the experience of coordinating student volunteers has increased my
leadership capacity.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
26. I feel that I was adequately prepared for this leadership role.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
27. Is there any advice you would like to give other potential student leaders?
28. Please check any of the following activities you participated in before taking this
leadership role:
a. Taken a leadership course
b. Served as a leader in another student organization
c. Worked in a supervisory position
d. Worked in a teaching position
e. Served as a mentor to youth
f. Other (If you selected “Other,” please explain:)
29. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group? If so, please provide your
contact information via this survey:
115 Higher Education Outreach via Student Organizations

Appendix B: Interview Questions

1. What social issues interest your organization’s members?

2. When seeking volunteer opportunities within the community, do you prioritize

mission compatibility or which organization can accommodate the most
students?

3. When it comes to serving with community partners, what is one thing you wish
they knew?

4. Describe a memorable service experience that your organization had with a

community partner.

5. Describe a frustrating service experience that your organization had with a

community partner.
6. What are some factors that make you feel equipped to coordinate your peers in
service experiences?

7. What are areas you would like additional skills in when working with your peers
and/or community partners?

8. How do organizations prepare students for service?

9. From the nonprofit’s perspective, what does preparation for your group look like?

10. Think about the most successful collaboration your organization has done. What
were some characteristics of that collaboration?

11. When it comes to managing your peers in service experiences, what do you enjoy?

12. When it comes to managing your peers in service experiences, what frustrates
you?

13. Is there anything you want us to know about your organization’s service
experiences?