Reciprocity between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and community has been espoused as a core principle of good practice in service-learning since its inception (Honnet & Poulsen, 1989; Sigmon, 1979). As the field has matured, the focus on community-campus partnerships has emerged as both a vehicle for actually conducting service-learning and a way to study the effectiveness of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). Indeed the current view appears to be that service-learning and partnerships are inextricably linked. Jacoby (2003) asserts, "... service-learning must be grounded in a network, or web, of authentic, democratic, reciprocal partnerships" (p. 6). The case is stated more forceful by Bailis (2000), who argues, "service-learning and partnerships are two sides of the same coin" (p. 5). The paucity of empirical literature supports the case that community partnerships are only beginning to be understood and should be studied both in terms of process and outcome (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Clarke, 2003). Giles and Eyler (1998) have argued that understanding community impacts of service-learning is one of the top ten unanswered questions in service-learning research. A review of the empirical literature from 1993-2000 on the effects of service-learning on various constituencies (Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001) shows that the topic of community is the least researched area in service-learning. Cruz and Giles (2000) analyze the reason for this paucity of empirical interest in the community dimensions of service-learning; they conclude that the only manageable and feasible way to study the community aspects of service-learning is to use the community-campus partnerships as unit of analysis. As Gelmon (2003) contends, "Assessment of both the processes and impacts of community-university partnership for service-learning is essential to determine the extent to which benefits are derived for both partners" (p. 61). Clarke's model of evaluating community-campus partnerships is a pioneer example of this approach.
