The Nonprofit Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh: preparing students for transition to professional settings

Abstract

The Nonprofit Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh gives graduate students the opportunity to serve as management consultants to nonprofit organizations. This article describes the learning objectives, logistics, and outcomes of the Nonprofit Clinic. Bloom’s 1956 taxonomy of learning objectives is employed to assess learning outcomes.

Keywords

Bloom’s taxonomy nonprofit capacity building public service education service learning

The Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA), University of Pittsburgh, prepares students for careers in public service, primarily in government and nonprofit organizations. The School offers three Master’s degrees for pre-service students: Master of Public Administration (MPA); Master of International Development (MID); and Master of Public and International Affairs (MPIA).¹ Each of these degrees requires students to complete 48 credit hours (usually 16 courses), typically in two years of full-time study. A School-wide core curriculum is required of all students, regardless of their chosen degree. The core curriculum consists of required courses in public administration, global governance, quantitative methods, policy analysis, and economics.

In addition, each student must complete a so-called “capstone seminar” in their second year of study.² The purpose of the capstone is to give students the opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge to a significant problem or issue in the public sector. Each year, students may choose from among several capstone seminars that vary in content and format. Capstone seminars transcend the three GSPIA degree programs mentioned above; that is, students from all three degree programs may choose to enroll in any capstone seminar that is offered in a given semester. The only prerequisite is that students must have completed the School-wide core curriculum and at least half of their degree requirements in order to enroll in a capstone seminar.

Instructors propose topics for capstone seminars, which must be approved by the School’s curriculum committee. Instructors are given significant latitude in the design of capstone seminars so long as the proposed seminar gives students the opportunity to apply their skills to a timely issue or challenge facing the public sector. Instructors are encouraged to design capstone seminars that are appropriate to at least two of GSPIA’s three degree programs. This requirement can pose challenges, both pedagogically and logistically. Most significantly, students arrive at a capstone seminar with different skill sets depending on the degree program in which they are enrolled. While there is some cross fertilization in earlier courses, the only truly consistent variable is that each student in the capstone seminar has completed the School-wide core courses. Thus, capstone seminars often require students and instructors to adjust quickly to new topics and problems and work effectively with other students from varying disciplines.

The nonprofit clinic capstone seminar

This article describes the Nonprofit Clinic, a capstone seminar developed by the author and offered to GSPIA students for the past five years. The Clinic places students in the role of management consultants to actual client organizations, typically private tax-exempt organizations in the Pittsburgh area. Since they blend public purpose with private resources, nonprofit organizations offer distinctive learning opportunities to students, many of whom aspire to work in nonprofits, as opposed to government organizations. Moreover, the instructor has extensive experience with private nonprofit organizations, both in practice and in scholarship.

In the Nonprofit Clinic students work under the supervision of a senior faculty member to help their client organization address a specific operational problem and to enhance the management capacity of the organization. Over the past three years, the Clinic has served 35 nonprofit organizations in the Pittsburgh area. Course evaluations suggest that the Clinic is meeting its objective of providing a context in which students can attain high-order learning objectives including application of knowledge acquired in other courses, critical assessment of data and information presented by client organizations, and combining information and knowledge in unique ways to define and address complex management issues in ways that not only advance their own learning but also satisfy client needs.

The learning objectives of the Nonprofit Clinic, contained in the syllabus, state that by the conclusion of the seminar students will be able to:

work with a nonprofit client to help the client diagnose and define problems of management capacity building;

apply their skills in policy analysis, organizational design, problem solving, team building, program evaluation, strategic thinking, and leadership to real organizational problems and opportunities;

design and manage a potentially complex consulting project from beginning to end, including: negotiation of the consulting agreement with the client, specification of deliverables, task and activity planning, project management, professional writing, and presentation skills;

practice skills in professional interaction, including professional etiquette and communication skills;

address in a professional and ethical way the unexpected issues that will arise in a consulting project; and,

build and sustain an effective team of professionals who will be engaged and mutually committed to delivering a professional-quality product to the client.

The final product produced by the student is a professional quality consulting report, delivered in person to the client in a formal setting that allows the client to engage the student consultants in dialogue about their findings and recommendations.

The Nonprofit Clinic seminar follows the traditional 15-week semester in GSPIA’s academic calendar. Typically, the Clinic is in session during the second semester of the year, from early January through the end of April. The Clinic meets in a traditional classroom setting only about half of those weeks. The first few weeks of the Clinic are classroom-intensive in order for students to fully understand the phases of the consulting process and to become familiar with the fundamental nature and dynamics of nonprofit organizations (Salamon, 2012). Substantial reading assignments and classroom discussions form the pedagogical core of the first weeks.

In the middle portion of the semester, much of the students’ work takes place in the field, as they work with their respective client organization. Classroom sessions during this period are organized around student presentations of how their work with the client is progressing. A good deal of group problem solving and peer consultation takes place during these classroom sessions. On weeks when the Clinic does not meet as a class, the instructor is available to work individually with student consultants to address concerns and problems they are encountering during the course of their consultancy. On occasion, the instructor may also accompany student consultants on visits to the client organization.

During the final weeks of the semester, classroom sessions are devoted to mock presentations of interim and final reports. Students provide each other with constructive feedback on both written and oral presentations in preparation for their official presentations, which typically take place in client offices and board rooms. The final two weeks of the semester are hectic for everyone. Students are busy putting final touches on their written and oral presentations and scheduling exit meetings with their respective clients. The instructor attends every client presentation. Logistically, the final two weeks of the Clinic involve a lot of local travel (usually within a 20-mile radius). On the occasion when the Clinic has served a distant client, final presentations might be conducted via videoconference.

Student composition

As noted above, GSPIA’s capstone seminars transcend the three Master’s degrees offered in the School. Consequently, students in the seminar do not necessarily have similar backgrounds, skills or interests. Over the past three years the distribution of students in the Nonprofit Clinic has been: Master of Public Administration (35), Master of International Development (12), Master of Public and International Affairs (7). Based on a review of their degree programs and major fields of study, approximately 20 per cent of the students in the Nonprofit Clinic over the past three years had little or no prior knowledge of private nonprofit organizations. In addition, GSPIA has a growing number of international students, mostly from China. Over the past three years, 15 per cent of the students in the Nonprofit Clinic have been from other countries and thus have not been deeply exposed to American nonprofit organizations.

Client recruitment and selection

Three months before the seminar begins, we send an announcement to nonprofit organizations in the Pittsburgh area, inviting them to submit proposals for consideration as Clinic projects. The announcement describes the types of projects that have been undertaken in the past (along with a few testimonials from former clients). The announcement also specifies very clearly that the students will be working within a 15-week time frame. It is extremely important in the client recruitment phase to convey realistic expectations.

We include in the announcement an application form that requires the prospective client to clearly state the objectives of the project, the envisioned deliverables, and to identify any anticipated problems the student(s) might encounter in fulfilling their obligations. The application form also conveys that the client will have certain obligations during the project, including giving access to information essential to the completion of the project.

We select approximately 10 to 12 clients per seminar.³ Experience has taught us that two (perhaps three) students per project seems to be ideal, thus enrollment in the Nonprofit Clinic is usually capped at 20 to 25 students. In this way, each student accepts a significant burden of responsibility for the project, thus avoiding the “free rider” problem of larger teams. Naturally, there are some advantages of larger teams of, say, four to six members. In particular, in a larger team students will learn more about group dynamics and may be able to bring more resources to bear on the client’s problem. On the other hand, our experience with larger teams is that they create more logistical problems in project management such as scheduling team meetings, assignment of work, editing final reports, and travel to client locations. Most importantly, it has been our experience that larger teams reduce accountability and overall project quality. We must remember that we are serving client organizations as well as students. Clients become more intensively engaged and committed with a team of two than with a team of five or six students. The work relationship is enhanced and the collaboration is intensified.⁴

Because we usually have far more client applicants than we can serve,⁵ we select our pool of clients based on mission, size, feasibility of the proposed project, and geographic proximity. We try to select a range of clients that will have broad appeal to GSPIA’s diverse student interests. Also, it helps if students have an opportunity to choose their assigned clients. Thus, about a month before the seminar begins, we circulate to enrolled students a listing of the client organizations that have been selected for the seminar, including a brief summary of the project, anticipated deliverables, and likely skills that the students will need to apply with each client. Students are encouraged to find out as much as they can about the client organizations and then pick their top three preferred clients. Typically we are able to accommodate one of their top three choices.

Over the past three years, the Nonprofit Clinic has served 35 clients. A representative sample of projects is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

A sample of the 35 clients and projects undertaken by the Nonprofit Clinic 2011 to 2013.

Client	Project
A community-based social service organization located in one of Pittsburgh’s most challenged neighborhoods	Development of a board handbook and leadership succession plan for the board chair and for the executive director
A senior citizen community center located in a suburb of Pittsburgh	A market study and business plan for a proposed fitness center for the organization
A suburban faith-based organization that serves a significant immigrant/refugee population	Preparation of a Social Return on Investment (SORI) analysis for one of their programs A second project for the same agency examined the feasibility of securing a targeted federal grant to promote refugee farming projects.^a
A community-based organization, originally a settlement house, located in one of Pittsburgh’s most challenged neighborhoods	A program evaluation of the organization’s summer youth camp, including the development of a logic model and interviews with staff and parents
A large hospital foundation in Pittsburgh	Analysis of a proposed “grateful patient” program that the client hopes will generate philanthropic contributions from former patients
A loosely organized (and not yet incorporated) group of Somali refugees living in Pittsburgh	Design and delivery of leadership workshops to help the core group of organizers examine the prospects of incorporating as a 501c3 charitable organization
A community-based economic development organization and an aging Chamber of Commerce located in the same economically distressed suburban community	Exploration of a proposed merger between the two organizations

^a Many of our clients request projects repeatedly, year after year. There are pros and cons to working repeatedly with client organizations. We accept repeat clients on a case-by-case basis, generally preferring to work with new clients.

As can be seen in Table 1, client projects vary but they often involve needs such as strategy development, market research, process improvement, program or product feasibility studies, governance assessments, public relations and branding, program evaluation, and general management.

Course format and sequence

The general outline of classroom discussions and readings follows four crucial phases in any consulting assignment (Block, 2000; Silberman, 2001; Cagney, 2010; Lukas, 2001).

The discovery phase

In this initial phase, the student consultant helps the client diagnose and articulate the problem to be solved. This phase involves identifying symptoms of problems, exploring plausible causes of those problems, clarifying assumptions and potential biases that might distort the definition of the problem, and eventually reaching agreement with the client on how the project will proceed. In this phase, the learning curve is steep. Students must quickly acquire information about the organization. They must also be able to draw upon knowledge and skills gained during their previous courses and decide whether or not that prior knowledge is applicable to the client’s problem. They must be able to comprehend and analyze the information supplied to them by the client. And perhaps most importantly, they must be able to critically evaluate the client’s perspective and potentially frame a new definition of the problem for the client to consider.

The data identification and collection phase

In this phase, the student consultant and the client reach agreement on what data (qualitative or quantitative) are needed to complete the consulting assignment. Some data may already exist in the form of organizational records, client information, or in existing data bases outside the organization. In other cases, students must collect original data via surveys, interviews, or other methods. This phase involves a great deal of analytical and evaluative thinking in order to identify the information gaps and assess the reliability and validity of information that the client supplies. Inevitably there are trade-offs in this phase because resource limitations and time constraints prevent the collection of “perfect” information.

The data analysis and interpretation phase

In this phase, the student consultant works with the client to analyze the data in light of the original project objectives, and begins to narrow the range of feasible solutions. Sometimes, when the data are analyzed, the original specification of the problem and the project may change. If this happens, the student consultant and the client agree on an addendum to the original consulting contract. Obviously, this phase of the consulting process requires students to use their analytical skills in an applied setting. But it also requires critical evaluation of those analytical skills in order to assess their applicability to the problem at hand. Inexperienced students often are tempted to reach into their tool kit of analytical methods acquired in other courses (e.g. cost–benefit analysis) without a great deal of reflection on how those tools need to be modified or adapted in the circumstances facing their client. During this portion of the course, students are encouraged to take steps to synthesize prior knowledge by, for example, consulting with other professors in GSPIA who can help the student make the leap from theory to practice. Indeed, there are many opportunities during the Nonprofit Clinic for students to re-establish relationships with other faculty members in the School to help them integrate and apply previously acquired skills and knowledge.

The recommendation, implementation, and capacity-building phase

In this phase, the student consultant works with the client to identify one or several strategies to address the problem, taking into consideration criteria such as efficacy, cost, sustainability, and internal management capacity. During the very first class session, students are told that their objective is not only to help a client address a current problem, but to enhance the organization’s capacity to address the problem on their own in the future. What resources were discovered during the course of the project that the client might access on their own in the future? What collaborative activities might enhance the client’s capacity? These and other capacity-building questions are especially challenging for students.

From the beginning of the seminar, it is stressed to the students that each of these four phases involves intensive communication with the client. The client should be fully engaged and involved at each phase in order to avoid surprises at the end of the project.

Peer teaching

During selected class sessions, consulting teams are required to make brief presentations on how they are working through each of the four consulting phases. These presentations might pose a problem or dilemma for the class to contemplate or the presentation might focus on a successful strategy or technique employed by the consulting team. There are other programmed activities for peer learning, including peer reviews and edits of final reports. As they become familiar with their consulting assignments, the students acquire new insights and strategies for navigating through the four-phase consulting process described above. Sharing these insights with their peers not only spreads knowledge, but peer teaching also gives each student the opportunity to reflect on what they are learning (Whitman, 1988).

Creating a professional climate and culture

To set the tone for the seminar, the instructor states in the opening class session that the experience for the students will be more like a job than a traditional seminar. The instructor states that they are to consider themselves as employees in a consulting firm that has a portfolio of projects under contract. The instructor is the “managing partner” of the firm. Also, it is stressed to students that they are representing not only themselves in their interactions with the client, but also the Nonprofit Clinic and, by extension, the University of Pittsburgh.

Early in the seminar, the instructor circulates a few of the finest products from prior semesters as a way of signaling students that they are part of a “Clinic legacy” and that they are expected to meet or exceed previously established standards of professionalism and product quality. Professionalism is expected in all communications with clients and the instructor is copied on all written communications. This, of course, is an added burden for the instructor but provides an opportunity for coaching and mentoring on appropriate communication techniques, media, and language.

To reinforce the professional culture, we brand the Clinic with an attractive logo that is used in all of our communications with clients. We also distribute style guidelines for all written communication and final reports to ensure a uniform and recognizable format for our communications, contributing to the branding of our product.

Finally, students are required to submit bi-weekly statements of their “billable hours”. While the client organizations do not pay for the consulting services, these bi-weekly time sheets allow the instructor to monitor time spent on the project, and they also socialize students to the billable hour concept that they may encounter in a future professional context.

Interim reports

It is extremely important for the instructor to keep students on track toward the delivery of their final product to the client. Thus, the following deadlines are enforced:

Weeks 1 through 4: In the first week of the seminar students make initial contact with the client to introduce themselves and to arrange the first meeting. By the third week they must hand in to the instructor a first draft of their consulting agreement and, by the fourth week, a final consulting agreement signed by the client, the student consultant, and the instructor.

Weeks 7 through 13: During this period students hand in various interim progress reports including preliminary findings and unanticipated problems they have encountered in completing the project. Near the end of this period they hand in a rough draft of their final report.

Weeks 14 and 15: Final reports are due one week before the end of the term. Students and the instructor schedule client meetings to deliver the final report. The instructor attends and observes all of the final project presentations.

Learning outcomes of the Nonprofit Clinic: taking aim at higher order learning objectives

This section of the article summarizes key findings of self-reported learning outcomes from the students enrolled in the Nonprofit Clinic as measured by the University-administered course evaluations and a supplemental evaluation, designed and used by the instructor in the 2013 Clinic, to assess the extent to which the Clinic advances the higher-order learning objectives.

Student satisfaction, perceived difficulty, and application to the world of practice

The Nonprofit Clinic is popular with students. In the most recent course evaluations 100 per cent of the students said that they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ recommend this course to other students.

In addition, the Nonprofit Clinic is deemed a very demanding course relative to others in the curriculum. When asked to compare the workload of the Nonprofit Clinic with other courses (1 = much less, 5 = much more) the median response from 2013 students was 5.0 (much more). When asked to rate the difficulty of the course relative to others on the same five-point scale, the median response was 4.0 (more difficult than other courses). Finally, when students were asked how much they learned in the Clinic relative to other courses the median response was 5.0 (much more).

Selected student comments on the standard course evaluation reveal their impressions with respect to practical applications and preparation for the professional world:

It really gave me true real world experience and I feel I can apply these skills in many areas. I appreciated the guidance we could receive as we were working out different issues.

[The course provided] real life experience that can be applied to my future profession. This capstone is something that I can put on my résumé and feel proud of.

[The course] provides a bridge between academic and real world.

Students also commented on the peer learning opportunities and the effort to create a simulated corporate climate in the class:

I…loved hearing about the variety of projects and ways of dealing with them. Just seeing how people approached different problems was fascinating. It was almost as though everyone in the room was a teacher. Everyone seemed genuinely interested in one another's projects, and the feedback from the class always seemed really beneficial.

[There was]…a sense of community in the class. We weren't just separate students working on separate projects, we were the GSPIA Nonprofit Clinic. We had a brand, a mission, and a shared concern not only for our clients, but for one another.

Students, not surprisingly, offered suggestions regarding team assignments:

My one suggestion would be to try to make sure that everyone has a partner…. Having a partner provides some really valuable elements: being able to talk out complicated issues, brainstorming ideas, seeing how someone else would approach the same problem, learning how to work in a team and negotiate roles, etc.

[I would suggest forming] larger groups when one partner is an international student without English fluency. The burden of drafting/writing everything for the client was very uneven.

The results above are drawn from the University-administered student satisfaction survey. That instrument is not useful in measuring the type of learning that takes place in a course. Consequently, the instructor conducted a separate survey tailored to this seminar and designed to assess student reflections on their learning. The sections below give the results of that independently administered survey.

The four-phase consulting model

The students in the 2013 Nonprofit Clinic overwhelmingly endorsed the four-phase organizing model, discussed above, saying that it paralleled the work they were doing with clients and allowed them to break down a very large and difficult project into more manageable pieces.

[The four stages] really helped to break the project down into manageable steps. I think it was a very helpful process as well for the client because they also wanted to jump ahead to solutions, so it was helpful to be able to step back and work through a process.

[The four phases] closely followed the work we were doing for the client so it was timely and could be applied immediately.

Students report that the first phase (discovery) of their consulting project was the most challenging of the four phases, followed closely by the last phase (recommendation and capacity building). In the discovery phase, students typically are very challenged by their first meetings with clients. They feel pressure to quickly obtain a firm grasp of the issues the client is facing and discern how the client has defined the problem. A few student quotes illustrate this point:

I think that the struggles we encountered for clarification of the project goals were a good illustration of the challenges we read about in our theory-based classes.

The most challenging part came at the very beginning and it was somewhat intimidating. We were not sure how we could collect information about the operations of [our client’s organization]…. So, it took us up to three meetings with the client to get to the point where it was clear why and how we can do it.

Anecdotally, students report that in the discovery phase of the consulting process they sometimes find that they perceive and define the problem differently than their client. They are cautious about expressing their divergent views because they lack confidence in their knowledge or they feel that the client has “settled” on a particular definition of the problem for unknown reasons. Students sometimes they report at this phase that the client ‘seems to have an agenda that I can’t figure out’.

The last phase of the consulting process – recommendation and capacity building – is also particularly challenging for the students and the instructor. Students are quite stressed near the end of their projects as they work together to write a coherent report and plan their presentation to the client. Often these presentations are made in front of the executive team of the organization, and sometimes even the board of directors, which adds another level of stress for students. It is not unusual for students to suffer a crisis of confidence, wondering if their work is really up to the standards they had envisioned at the start. They especially have difficulty anticipating client reactions, concerns or questions that may arise in the final presentation. Thus, we require students to do a mock presentation the week before they deliver their final report, with the instructor and other students playing the role of the client. A few student observations illustrate their experiences near the end of the project:

The intense learning happened in the last month when we were deciding what recommendations to make to our client and how to make them.

After collecting all the data, coming up with recommendations and having written most of the content we were still unsatisfied with the framework of the report. Going back to the literature we read earlier in the course helped provide a framework to present the recommendations – not as unconnected suggestions but as a cohesive product.

Pace and intensity of learning

The supplemental evaluation asked students to draw a picture of their learning curve from the beginning to the end of the semester. Generally the pattern they describe is not linear, but rather like a series of steps. In most cases they describe a learning curve that gradually increases in slope through the first third of the course, flattening in the middle, then increasing in slope again in the final third of the course.

Students were asked to describe what happened at the high points in their graph where the learning seemed to be most intense and productive. We see in the quotes below that students report that significant learning took place after they collected and analyzed data, giving them both new insights and enhanced confidence in their findings.

At…the high peaks we were really able to make sense of the information and process it into something that was useful to meeting our goals of the project. Then the learning would drop down again as we…were working to figure out how to tackle the next step. The learning process did build on previous information though so…that it grew exponentially as project progressed.

The high points were at times where our data collection and analysis were highest, but also where we had the best communication with our client.

There were also moments when my partner and I would meet and have completely different perspectives on data, information gathered or meetings with the client and this was extremely helpful to have a second person and perspective during the entire process.

These comments illustrate, yet again, that students seem to perceive the greatest degree of learning at the beginning and end of the project, when the full spectrum of Bloom’s higher order skills may be demanded.

Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives

Lastly, the instructor was interested in the extent to which students in the Nonprofit Clinic experienced higher-order learning, beyond application of tools to the solution of a client’s problem, including critical and creative thinking.

Fifty-seven years ago, Benjamin Bloom edited a seminal book summarizing discussions he had facilitated among a group of educators who, over a period of several years, attempted to improve the classification of educational goals and metrics of achievement. The resulting taxonomy of learning goals, attributed to Bloom et al. (1956), has since become one of the most influential frameworks in the field of learning theory and practice. The portion of Bloom’s taxonomy that has received the most attention contains the so-called cognitive skills:

remembering (knowledge): the ability to demonstrate memory of facts, terms, and concepts

understanding (comprehension): the ability to explain and interpret facts and ideas

applying: the ability to use knowledge to solve problems

analyzing: the ability to break down a problem into constituent parts and make discriminating judgments about what knowledge applies in a given situation

evaluating: the ability to make normative judgments about information and to select the most effective solution from among several plausible solutions

creating (synthesis): the ability to combine information and knowledge in unique ways, including the ability to create a new solution or to redefine a problem

Most observers classify the last three objectives – analyzing, evaluating, and creating – as “higher order” learning (Ivie, 1998).

Bloom’s taxonomy has been criticized by some experts. Some have claimed that the taxonomy, with its “linear” and sequential qualities, is at odds with the non-linear learning process (Marzano, 2000). Relatedly, others claim that Bloom’s taxonomy is sequentially flawed and not empirically verified (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Finally, the apparent esteem with which Bloom is held may vary by country, suggesting that there may an inherent cultural or even socio-political bias in the implied hierarchy of the taxonomy. These criticisms, while potentially insightful, are beyond the scope of this particular article. Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives was not used as the organizing framework for the Clinic, but rather as a rubric for helping students reflect on what they themselves learned during the course of their consultancy with their client.

Achieving the learning objectives in Bloom’s taxonomy

In the supplemental course evaluation, we presented students with a rudimentary description of each phase of Bloom’s taxonomy and asked whether that part of typology manifested in the seminar and, if so, to give an example.

Nearly all of the students reported that they needed to draw upon all parts of Bloom’s taxonomy at various stages in the course. Interestingly, one student reported that the two “lowest” levels of Bloom’s taxonomy – remembering prior knowledge and comprehending prior knowledge – did NOT come into play in this seminar.

Table 2 gives a few illustrative quotes from students regarding how each part of Bloom’s taxonomy applied to them in the Nonprofit Clinic.

Table 2.

Student perceptions of learning according to Bloom’s categories.

Bloom’s taxonomy categories	A sample of students’ self-reported learning
Remembering (Knowledge): The ability to demonstrate memory of earlier learned facts, terms, concepts, and so on. This includes knowledge of the foundations of a given field, its theories, propositions and literature.	Yes, I believe that I utilized information from previous classes during my time at GSPIA and current classes that I was taking in during the consulting process and was able to put it into practice. As well, during the entire process we had to go back to previously learn[ed] information from the beginning of the semester as we were finalizing and writing the final product for the client. I was able to draw from my classes that I’ve taken in the past, as well as personal experience [with the techniques of program evaluation]. The project required us to build upon knowledge gathered in phases, so final the product could not be formulated without a firm grasp of previous data.
Understanding (Comprehension): The ability to explain, interpret and extrapolate facts and ideas. This includes the ability to see how the knowledge is potentially applicable in disparate situations.	Because…a significant amount of…information [was] only located in the client’s mind, it was important for me to continually reiterate what the client said…to ensure that I was understanding the facts properly. This usually happened verbally, but sometimes also in written format. We spent nearly one-third of our time understanding the real situation in the organization.
Applying: The ability to use knowledge to solve problems by adapting rules to different situations. This is the ability to put knowledge to practice.	We had to take the information that we were gaining and apply it to the actual situation of the client in order to tackle their challenges. Having the knowledge to create a logic model…is something that I brought into this class and had even done…before, however, applying that knowledge to the actual project I was working on enhanced my ability to do this work in the future.
Analyzing: The ability to use reason and logic to make inferences and find supporting evidence. This includes the use of logic and deduction and the ability to break down a problem into constituent parts and make discriminating judgments about what knowledge applies in a given situation or to various parts of the problem.	Yes, we took a series of interviews with lots of information and had to break them down and pull out information that was similar and different or that stood out. The client had a lot of ideas and information that she put forth and it was important to break those down in a way that made the sequence of the client’s program more understandable and accessible.
Evaluating: The ability to make normative judgments about information and to challenge the validity of ideas. This involves the ability to select the most effective solution from among several plausible solutions and the ability to critique and defend decisions.	We had to be able to defend those recommendations from the data and information that we had gathered which was especially important for recommendations…which the client had previously not believed would work or [were] possible. It took us a while to help our client understand the importance of working with…staff [in other departments]. But we presented our research findings on the national best practices and how [good results have been achieved in comparable organizations by following a coordinated inter-departmental approach].
Creating (Synthesis): The ability to combine information and knowledge in unique ways in order to propose alternative solutions. This involves the ability to create a new solution or to redefine a problem.	The project [recommendations were] built on synthesizing imperfect indicators that could shed light on larger problems. We produced recommendations that didn’t exist in any other form before and one recommendation differed vastly from [the] original expectations [of the] client and students because [the] data led to an alternative solution. It was only after we collected the data, made recommendations and written most of the content when we could step back and create a framework for, what until then, seemed like unconnected pieces.

It is interesting to note that in the evaluation and synthesis stages of Bloom’s taxonomy, the students frequently report that they helped the client reframe the problem or see the problem from a perspective that was different from the original conception at the beginning of the project.

Lastly, we should note that Bloom’s taxonomy can be a useful template or rubric for the instructor to detect both positive and negative developments in a student’s learning. On the positive side, in a course like the Nonprofit Clinic, students often acquire and use substantially new knowledge and must do so in a self-directed way. For example, on one project the student consultants needed to learn some essential information about pharmacology and also about drug manufacturing processes. In another project, a student taught herself the methods of inventory control and management for a nonprofit organization that had a warehouse of housing supplies. In yet another project, the student consultants needed to master complicated software for conducting network analysis.

On the negative side, the instructor has witnessed instances where student consultants have misapplied prior knowledge. Sometimes this is the case when a student enters the consulting project with a pre-learned set of analytical tools and is stubbornly or naively determined to apply those tools regardless of their applicability to the client’s needs. In one case in particular, a student consultant was determined to use a particular analytical tool that required data that could not possibly be obtained within the client’s financial and analytical resources. Regrettably, the instructor learned of this only during the final presentation when the executive director of the client organization expressed some exasperation with the student, saying that the student had obviously not paid heed to her earlier misgivings about the use of this particular technique. This experience taught us to demand more from the students in terms of interim reports on the methods they propose to use in their project. Moreover, we now conduct mid-term surveys of clients to assess the extent to which the project (and the consultant) are meeting their expectations.

Client satisfaction with the nonprofit clinic: providing a valued public service

We conduct two client evaluations during the Clinic − one at the mid-point in order to identify any unexpected problems and attempt to solve them before it is too late, and a final evaluation a week or two after the consultants deliver their final report. Final evaluations submitted for the past two years are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Two-year summary of client satisfaction surveys (2012 and 2013).

The student consultant…	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree
Listened carefully to our needs	77% (17)	23% (5)
Worked effectively with us to specify deliverables	62% (13)	33% (7)	5% (1)
Delivered products on time	86% (19)	10% (2)		4% (1)
Delivered a product that met our expectations in terms of quality and usefulness	82% (18)	18% (4)
Behaved appropriately in appearance, communication, and protocol	96% (22)	4% (1)
Maintained on-going communication with us	90% (18)	5% (1)	5% (1)
Displayed appropriate flexibility, adjusting to new issues	75% (15)	25% (5)
Displayed impressive technical competence	68% (15)	32% (7)
Understood and respected our mission	96% (22)	4% (1)
Solved immediate problem and helped us build long-term capacity	76% (13)	24% (4)
Overall satisfaction	68% (15)	27% (6)	5% (1)

Note. Results include multiple evaluations from some clients because a variety of employees or volunteers worked directly with the students and had valid impressions of their work. Twenty-two surveys were returned, but not all respondents answered every question.

On only three of the survey items did a respondent express neutrality or moderate dissatisfaction with the students’ performance. Selected quotes from clients provide another perspective on their level of satisfaction with the work of the Nonprofit Clinic.

This was an evolving topic. While it was clear they would produce a final report…other project deliverables were a bit more ad hoc…. Given the fluidity, [the student consultants] were good about adapting and responding to our changing needs, while also establishing a proactive approach wherever possible.

I imagine this [project] will have a lasting impact whatever path we take. The very nature of participating in this project created a cross-team dialogue that will benefit our future…initiatives and, hopefully, lead us to operate in a less siloed approach.

These students started with a faulty assumption. However, once we were able to manage our expectations, they were engaged, focused and very strategic in the way they approached the project. They checked in with us regularly and delivered a final product on time and on task. We were very impressed and would recommend the program to others.

[The student consultants] were very responsive and [took] the project in an interesting direction. The final document that they produced for us will help guide us in improving our website/data collection. They were also able to produce a video for us, showing that they could be flexible with our organizational needs. [We] really appreciate their professionalism, flexibility, and sound advice that they were able to provide us with.

Great effort. The presentation at the end of the project was focused, clear, concise and professional. The students accepted our lack of resources and saw it as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.

Their products brought new views and directions to our research.

Certainly, not every project is an unqualified success. The comment below addresses a few perceived shortcomings in the work of the students.

The…recommendations seem far beyond what the [client] can undertake on their own…. It is probably true for many fledgling organizations…. Prematurely setting out on this path will lead to a poor outcome, and possibly a setback in my opinion.

Conclusions and lessons we are learning

The article has presented evidence that the Nonprofit Clinic, a distinctive type of capstone experience that places students in the role of management consultants, contributes to their higher-order learning and is an effective pedagogical tool to help prepare them for the 21st-century challenges facing public service professionals.

Such a seminar is a challenge for both students and instructors. There is high potential for significant benefit for the students and for the community, but there are risks as well. Here are a few of the lessons we are learning as we continue to revise and, hopefully, improve the Nonprofit Clinic:

Building the airplane while in flight: Advance preparation for the Clinic, including vetting clients, can help reduce uncertainty for both the instructor and the students. However, this type of seminar requires both the instructor and the students to continuously adapt, refine, and adjust to circumstances that arise in the course of the term. Consequently, this seminar places significant demands on instructors in terms of accessibility to students and the ability to trouble-shoot in real time.

Selecting clients and projects: One must strike a balance in the selection of clients. If the project is too simple, students will not have the opportunity to pursue higher-order learning objectives; the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (remembering and applying) will suffice. However, if the project is too complex, the students will experience frustration and the client also will be disappointed in the outcome.

Pairing students: As noted above, we believe that two to three students per project is the ideal number and that students should have some input regarding their assigned project. When there are international students in the class, especially if language fluency is an issue, we recommend pairing the students with a partner who is fluent in English.

Reminding students about learning goals: Many students express alarm when they realize that their prior coursework may only partially (if at all) prepare them for the consulting project. It is important to remind them that the Clinic is not a cumulative experience based solely on prior coursework. Rather, students must be reminded again and again that they will likely be well outside their comfort zone for much of the semester.

Staying on top of projects…no surprises: One of the biggest challenges for the instructor is staying on top of the projects, and this is difficult with more than 10 projects. Requiring regular reports from students is a way to stay informed, but the instructor also must be attentive to informal feedback, including careful observation of the students’ demeanor, displayed effort, and even stress levels to intervene when necessary.

Engaging clients in the learning mission: It is important to engage client organizations in the learning mission and to encourage them to embrace the concepts of the learning organization (Senge, 1996). They should understand the learning objectives of the course. However, they should never be encouraged to coddle the students or otherwise have expectations that are lower than they would have for professional consultants. Students should not be patronized or relieved of meeting anything but the highest expectations of professionalism.

Potential partnerships with other clinics: There is potential to work with other “clinic” organizations on our campus, especially the Law Clinic in our School of Law. Some of our prospective clients are wrestling with issues that could be informed by expert legal advice, such as filing articles of incorporation or setting up a for-profit subsidiary. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the Law Clinic about possible collaboration in a future capstone seminar.

While the Nonprofit Clinic is demanding on both students and instructors, the dividends are impressive. Students display the full range of Bloom’s learning objectives and they acquire a number of intangible insights into the world of professional practice. As such, a course like the Nonprofit Clinic plays an important role in a curriculum designed to prepare students for the challenges of public service in the 21^st century.

Footnotes

Acknowledegements

The author expresses gratitude to Shelley Scherer for her many contributions as the teaching assistant in this course.

Notes

References

Anderson

Krathwohl

(2001) Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Block

(2000) Flawless Consulting (2nd ed). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Bloom

Engelhart

Furst

Hill

Krathwohl

(1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I – Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

Cagney

(2010) Nonprofit Consulting Essentials: What Nonprofits and Consultants Need to Know. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ivie

(1998) Ausubel’s learning theory: an approach to teaching higher order thinking skills. The High School Journal 82(1): 35–42.

Lukas

(2001) Consulting with Nonprofits: A Practitioner’s Guide. St. Paul, MN: Amherst Wilder Foundation.

Marzano

(2000) Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Salamon

(2012) The resilient sector: The future of nonprofit America. In Salamon

(ed), The State of Nonprofit America (2nd ed). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Senge

(1996) The fifth discipline. In Shafritz

Ott

(eds), Classics of Organization Theory (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

10.

Silberman

(2001) The Consultant's Toolkit. New York: McGraw Hill.

11.

Whitman

(1988) Peer Teaching: To Teach is to Learn Twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.