RR2: How organizations choose service learners

I believe that it is good for non-profits to have some sort of criteria for their volunteers, so that they can make the most out of them, but also if organizations are not careful, certain criteria can cause them to lose valuable volunteers.

I chose to work at KidWorks, and before I began volunteering, I had to fill out an application, which included giving two references. I understand that I did not have to undergo the full application process because I was enrolled in UniStudies, but I have had an experience with the criteria used by community partners for past internships. The first internship I ever applied to, while in high school, I was turned away, the reason being that I was too young. I understand from reading the article by Garcia that this certain organization was most likely concerned about skill and maturity level, but even then I already had experience working with non-profit organizations. Even though organizations need to have competent and proactive volunteers working for them, it disappointed me that I was turned away because of my age. In this way, I realize that organizations could be weeding out a lot of less mature volunteers, but in the process they may also be losing valuable workers with experience. Age should not be a sole determining factor.

I think that the criteria used by organizations have both pros and cons in helping students like me to find a good site. For example, in regards to the first internship I applied for, it made it difficult because the organization was one that I really admired and had wanted to work with for awhile. However, I feel that when I get an internship that has more criteria that needs to be fulfilled, I gain more confidence in myself, armed with the knowledge that the organization believed me to be a good fit for the organization and for my job.

When I looked into all the service learning sites at first I thought Kid Works would be the right fit for me, but after reading the part about how service sites main goal is to get something back from that service person not give anything back, I thought Second Harvest would be a better site for me. At second harvest volunteers are required to do more laborious work to provide food for the hungry in Irvine and I thought that would give me a much better understanding of my commitment to service. I volunteered at elementary schools all four years I was in high school and that’s why I wanted to switch things up a little and try something new. Out of all the service sites the criteria that this site offered seemed to fit the most into my schedule and what I wanted out of the program. Second Harvest offered more flexible hours and I could also do service on the weekend unlike many other services sites. Unlike Kid Works who required me to get a TB test to work with the preschoolers, Second Harvest did not require me to take any kind of testing which would have taken time and money on my part. The criteria that community partners used both made it easier and harder to find a site that I wanted. For example, Kid Works required the TB testing and were not open on the weekends, making it harder for me to volunteer with them. While at the same time the criteria that Second Harvest had made it much easier for me to volunteer for them because they did not require any sort of testing, just that I sign up for my shift hours online. In the end I am happy with the results; I think I will learn a lot myself by volunteering at Second Harvest, while at the same time get the chance to help the community in which I live.

I contacted the site that I wanted to volunteer at first, but when they didn’t respond there was faculty-initiated contact. Even then they haven’t replied to me. The site that I had chosen is actually selective about the people that they pick to volunteer. Their application process includes a background check, volunteer registration form and a workshop. It of course takes a bit of time and this can make it harder on a volunteer because they might not fit all the criteria. I was willing to go through the process even though it was difficult because of their mission. It intrigued me and I really wanted to volunteer there, but at the same time its making it difficult to be a volunteer. Like the text said some sites just don’t accept whoever is available. I think that having a hard application process is a good and bad. For one they are picking out the best, they don’t want just anyone to volunteer there. They want people who are really interested and want to gain experience. Its bad because it makes people not want to volunteer.

I will unfortunately not be volunteering in my first choice of site which was the Second Harvest Food Bank due to the fact that I was informed my local Headstart center, where my son attends, would be an appropriate place as well. I love kids and since it is near and I would be interacting with my son and his peers, this would be an excellent choice. Considering this week’s reading and my new choice of service learning site I think these criteria fit together very well. Characteristics mentioned in the reading that fit seamlessly with my future volunteering at Headstart include the fact that undergraduates appear to seem to be more energetic and enthusiastic which is necessary if you intend on working with children. Also they are right that volunteering in certain sites such as me that I am a mother and interested in children is that we get involved in certain sites because they have something to do with us. There is some connection prior to volunteering in that particular site.
The only ways that they might conflict is that there is really no training provided and that the volunteering itself is slightly unstructured compared to other places I have volunteered. You are simply provided with a manual which you are to go over on your spare time and the requirement of getting a TB test. Aside from that you just arrive and help in what is needed, there are no specific tasks that are assigned to a volunteer it is just a “help in what you can” kind of place.
I think most service learning places make it relatively easy to become a volunteer in their facility. Of course you need the essentials such as a decent resume and an acceptable interview practice. I think for more sensitive sites such as working with abused or foster children there are much more requirements and training involved.

After realizing what site interested me most, I made initial contact by emailing the organization. I explained how eager I was to get involved with their mission. This fits one of the first contacts criteria explained. The service learning sites work with an institution of higher education, UC Irvine, looking for promising students that are a good fit for their organizations. This worked as an advantage for us, because I now realize how difficult it might have been looking for service learning site alone. The impression some organizations have on undergraduates isn’t the greatest and I agree with some of their views.
I hope to gain a lot of experience and grow some maturity during my time as a service learner. This, however, conflicts with the specific community partners criteria that may prefer an already experienced and mature volunteer. Another confliction, I see myself going through, is that although I have learned a lot about my organization and their mission I am not so sure they need a long-term committed volunteer. This class requires 15 hours of service learning, so that could be considered as a short-term learning experience throughout the span of 10 weeks, but I was hoping to get really involved and keep up with the organization beyond the fact that it is required to pass. Unfortunately, expectation weren’t communicated well between both parties. My organization needed volunteers quick and I didn’t know what questions to ask. I am still happy with my site and I know we can both make the best of my time working with them.
No specific structure as of yet has been organized, but some of the community partners criteria may have worked in my benefit when finding my site. Free Wheelchair Mission interested me most out of all the possible learning sites, and they were in need of help. Some one that is enthusiastic and took immediate initiative was a perfect match. By making the first contact I think I had the preferred characteristics for the organization and I was placed in a good fit that will benefit the site and myself.

The article mentions how first contact is needed to be made by either the student, faculty, or the organization. In my case I made the first contact. Last summer me and my girlfriend went to get tested for HIV at the AIDS Services Foundation in Orange County. The test provider found out about my major and asked if I would like to be a volunteer there. I answered that I would like to and from then on I started going there to volunteer. So the first contact could actually be mutual between me and the organization. I didn’t go there with the intent on becoming a volunteer and the organization reached out to me when I came. The article also talks about a selection process organizations conduct sometimes. The only requirement for me was that I had to get TB tested. I feel that a selection process makes it harder for students to get service learning agreements from sites. However I do feel like it is necessary for Organizations to have them. The service learning sites are looking to run a well organized organization. If they do not weed out the bad candidates then they might end up with a few volunteers that tend to slack off or are lazy. So for their own well being I do believe that some organizations need to have criteria or requirements to insure that they get only motivated individuals. Also some places do not like to take in undergrad students. This is for the benefit for the organization and not to just discriminate against undergrads I’m sure. The service learning site might know from experience that undergrad students do not possess the maturity level to handle the jobs and tasks that the service learning site provides. What I have seen at my site is not that many people come to volunteer there so the selection process is not too rigorous. Many students do not make first contact with them. Nor do i think they go to volunteer fairs and proactively try to make first contact either. I think this is due to what the article mentions in that they cannot afford to.

Do the criteria community partners use to choose you make it easier, harder, better, worse, etc. for you to find a good site?

I think the criteria community partner uses to select service learners do make it harder for students to find a site to work at. The more selective the site is, and the longer the application process is, the more intimidating it becomes. As a result, it can often time deter interested candidates. Students may avoid applying to certain locations if they see that the application process is a long and difficult one.

In the past, volunteer opportunities were abundant and easy to find; nowadays, volunteer opportunities are more and more difficult to locate. It seems as though organizations are no longer in need of people volunteering their time to them, but that is not the case as we always hear that there nonprofit and independently own organizations that are in constant need of volunteer and service learners. As the article mentioned, a greater number of organizations are being more selective about the people they choose to work at their site, this is because their limited resources requires them to do so. I can see this to be beneficial to the location, as it allows them to select qualified candidates that matches their need. But at the same time, locations are discouraging interested candidates who are willing to donate their time and effort to an organization in need.

I think for me personally my criteria fit well with my site. I want to expand skills that are directly related to the task I am volunteering for. I am probably more the exception than the rule, however, because I sought out my own site outside of the short list presented in class. I am passionate about the work I will be doing and that is a bonus for my site. I am also committing a lot more than 15 hours in order to work there. Unfortunately the short service learning required in this course is a misfit for my site. You have to train for 20 hours before you can even begin to contribute. I can understand why it is so difficult for organizations to find undergraduate service-learners that can actually benefit their organization, when the time invested may only have a minimal benefit before the student ends the class require them to volunteer. On the other hand, students may spend 20 hours trying to secure a volunteer position to only give 15 hours of service.

I do think that the criteria organizations use to select service-learners is of benefit to both parties. Firstly, the student is not likely to learn much in an environment where they are of little use. Secondly, the organization will likely work harder to train a student that is capable and skilled at performing their job. Thirdly, if you aren’t being selected, because you are not an ideal candidate, it may force you to adapt your level of professionalism to acquire a position.

I honestly can’t say how well the varying criteria that organizations in the book used matched up with my site. I think many of the criteria being used are unspoken, at least to applicants. However, I displaying interest in the site beyond the scope of this course, I dressed professionally for the interview, and I gave a list of my qualifications to meet what I anticipated would be expectations of a qualified applicant.

Community partners select their service sites due to the interest, availability, and location. The site that I chose fits into the categories that were mentioned in the reading. The reason that I chose my site was due to the location and availability. However, I have yet to develop an interest for it. This is because I do not know much about the topic and their purpose of what they do. But they believe in drew me into wanting to find out. In the reading, the author brought up a point about “some organizations staff are “very selective” in choosing service learners, setting aside any fears that their high standards may alienate those who provide the students.” I felt that the site I chose did not agree with this statement. Today, I walked into my site for the first time, and I casually asked them if I could come in once a week to volunteer, and told them that I was interested in what they do. They openly agreed to take any volunteers that walk in and assigned me a spot right away. I believe that this site is willing to take anyone that walks in because it is an open environment in which they believe that students who come in are responsible and is “able to manage their time very well” and be countable for their actions. When it comes to finding a site, it is all about what the service learners are interested in. The author mentioned that they prefer students who are interested in gaining general experience in the field, exploring “new passions” and possible career paths, and developing personal skills. These are key components that will help get us students more involved in what we believe in and want to pursue. I feel that being a part of my site will help me understand what my future holds, and take in a perspective that I have yet to experience before.

According to the suggestions in the reading, as far as the criteria used by service learning centers to choose service learners, I feel that is it much easier for me to be considered for positions and much easier to choose sites in general. The reasoning behind this is that as a 5th year student, service learning centers see me as someone who has had a good amount of experience academically, socially, and culturally. I don’t necessarily agree completely with the opinions of the undergraduate student versus a graduate student example or the first-year versus a fourth-year case, but I do see how certain life experiences may be necessary or contribute to accomplish certain tasks. With that said, the criteria that the authors presented did match a few of the criteria in my service learning site application. For instance, the application for the learning center I’m applying to wanted to know what year I was, education level, prior experience, current job, and interests. What was very similar to the reading in terms of interests was that my service learning center provides an opportunity to select areas you would like to work in, but at the same time still (in may case) explains that only certain days are really needed. This creates a good balance of personal choice mixed with the centers’ needs. At this point, I have submitted my application and will be interviewed over the phone within the next few days. Finally, this is another example that matches the selection process mentioned in the reading where service learning sites want to get a better insight of who they potentially hire before they make that decision.

The criteria of the community groups in the reading bot did and didn’t match up with my experience at my site. Before this class, I have been trying to volunteer at the Newport Bay Conservancy. I sent emails and applied online but never got a response. I figure they get so many emails and applications that they don’t even look at a lot of them, especially from students. After no response on these attempts, I went to their main center and talked to an actual volunteer there. I asked them how I could get involved beyond the public volunteer events. Through that I was directed to the main volunteer coordinator and was signed up to be trained to be a volunteer. Once I started taking this class, I went to them and asked if I could do my service learning there and start after training and they said yes with no questions asked. By comparing this to what the authors say, you can see the similarities and differences. On the one hand, the normal ways of contact (email and applications) led to no responses. I think they look for people that are older mainly and being a student is not an top choice volunteer for them. They seemed to respond well to me coming in and talking to them in person. This is probably because it shows more effort and initiative, like the authors were talking about. Once I set up with the training, there was no issues at all. They were all happy to know I was volunteering and seemed excited to work with me. I found this interesting since none of them know me or much about m, besides the fact that I go to UCI. I never had to give a resume, letter of interest, or an interview. It seemed like all of this was waived because I came in to talk to them. Many of the community group leaders that were quoted in the reading said that they were very selective and required things like interviews. Newport Bay Conservancy seemed like they would be like that at first, but once they were shown interest through the effort I gave, they were very responsive and willing to take me on.

I feel that it is necessary for community partners to be critical to the people they choose to bring into their organization. It is a bad investment of their time if they waste it on someone who has no interest or passion for the work being done. But this process alienates those that want to learn and pursue that passion. Some of the things that community partners like are mature and hard-working individuals who are willing to go above and beyond the tasks given to them. The organizations that seem the best are ones that treat and expect the same things from their interns and staff. This sets a level of professionalism and trust, and creates a relationship between the service learner and community partner. But a downside to this is that it makes it difficult for people who cannot satisfy the time commitment but are still genuinely interested. But as Stephanie has mentioned in her reflection, it all truly does come down to the individual and whether they are genuinely interested and passionate or not. I have not yet heard back from my service site, but after the readings this week, I now know the difficulties that they face and the burden that I can potentially put on their shoulders. This makes me even more passionate and willing to commit and do the work that needs to be done.

The criteria that community partners use to choose an application can make it both easier and harder for one to find a good site. It’s easier in a sense that they already have a list of set guidelines and qualifications that are required, so if you do not meet any of their qualifications, you do not have to waste yours or the organization’s time going through the application process. It also allows one to get a general sense of what organizations are looking for, so if you don’t have the skills desired, you can acquire those skills, and apply in the future.

It’s harder in the sense that there is usually an interview process. The interview provides the organization with a first hand experience of what the applicant is all about (they get to see, speak, and connect with the person). While I believe interviews are the most accurate, in terms of being able to meet the applicant and see what she/he is all about, personally the interview is usually my downfall. I usually get through the application process fine, but when it comes to the interview, I get nervous, and my performance isn’t that great.
In the reading, the authors mentioned that some organizations were afraid that undergraduates lacked professionalism, maturity, and good work quality. This assumption would make it very hard for an undergraduate to find a good site, but I have yet to come across an organization that rules out “younger” people. I believe that if you are genuinely interested in providing service, have good intentions, and are able to live up to your promises, then it doesn’t matter how old you are.

My experience with Second Harvest Food bank was, and hopefully will continue to be a positive one. The criteria in the reading, matched with the food bank’s criteria in a sense that they are looking for people with good intentions and who are energetic and enthusiastic. They seem to be very welcoming.

Overall, I believe that every organization has good intentions in mind when looking for applicants. It’s very hard to generalize the process because there are always exceptions. Everyone has different circumstances, and it really depends on the impression that you make.

The criteria from the service learning site I chose correspond with the one covered in the text. Through a series of questions in an interview, the site coordinators were able to determine whether I was fit for the positions they wanted to place me in or not. Thanks to my experience with small children and my interest in education, they were able to determine that I am going to perform my service in an optimistic and energetic manner. The downside of my application, however, is that I am a first-year undergraduate, and this often correlates to degraded fame. As the text states, some service learning coordinators favor graduate students because they display a higher level of maturity and focus. In addition, even if undergraduates may be immature and disruptive, as the text assures, I believe that it all comes down to the individual. If the student truly enjoys the area in which he or she is placed, whether he or she is an undergrad or a graduate student, the result should be encouraging. Although the service learning recruitment depends on the coordinator, my volunteer coordinator did not seem to hesitate to allow me to serve at the KidWorks organization. In fact, she said I was more than qualified for the position.