Action Plan

In response to the Exit Interview

While the student being interviewed might gain some insight from this one-on-one
interview with the supervisor, the exit interview might be deemed more useful for the supervisor.
Depending on the combined answers of all trip leaders, this may determine whether or not the
training process or even elements of the program itself are discarded or kept. In the action plan
for this tool the person who is discussed below the question is the supervisor unless otherwise
mentioned.
What did you like most about your experience as an Alternative Breaks Student Trip
Leader?
o This is a question that, depending on the consensus of all trip leaders, the
supervisor will want to take a look at. The answers would hopefully reveal the
strengths of, not just the training process, but perhaps of the program as a whole.
What did you find most challenging about the experience.
o This can be used by both the supervisor when finding out what areas to provide
more support with future trip leaders or as areas where the student might have
experienced growth/ can experience growth.
Thank back to your training. What stood out as particularly helpful? What do you wish
you would have known before the trip?
o This is a great question for figuring out the strengths and weaknesses of training.
This question would be useful for finding out where to provide support and what
to leave as is.
Did you feel that you had enough guidance in terms of our expectations?
o The answer to this question would determine whether or not the supervisor would
adjust the positions description or the list of expectations.
Did you feel as if the amount of work and types of tasks you were assigned were
reasonable?
o Depending on the answers to this question, the supervisor might need to either
increase or decrease the amount of duties that the student worker positions are
required to handle, or even increase the number of student workers.
Think back to the reflection curriculum. What could have been done to increase your
preparation or confidence level in facilitating quality reflections.
o Reflection is a key part of the Alternative Break Experience. This is where
students have a chance to think about and discuss the events of the days service.
If the trip leaders do not feel that they were able to hold quality reflection
sessions, then the training will need to be reevaluated.
What would have improved your overall experience?
o This is a question that would be good to look at if the supervisor is looking to add
newer elements to trip leaders process. There might be options for training that
the supervisor might have never even thought of but the student has.
In what ways do you feel you grew over the course of the leadership experience? What
did you learn about yourself during this experience?
o Although trip leaders might be viewed as student employees, they are here to
grow as students just like any other participant. The supervisor should ask a
question like this and use the answers to understand how to better facilitate
growth and development in the student.
If you held this position again, what would you do differently? What recommendations
would you have for future student trip leaders?
o Like the above question, this question also helps the supervisor view the growth
of the student. The supervisor also probably has never been a student trip leader,
so it would give him/her a first-person insight on the struggles/successes that the
trip leader has faced during their time holding the positon. This might also
provide some insight as to whether or not the trip leader would be open to
returning for the following year, given that they are eligible.
What recommendations would you have for staff in terms of working with trip leaders?
o This is also a question that gives the supervisor insight on the trip leaders own
experience. This could also be seen as the trip leader evaluating the supervisor or
any other faculty/staff/graduate assistant trip advisors that attended the trip. It
would be crucial for the supervisor to be open to this sort of feedback and monitor
how they fulfill their role depending on questions such as this.
If Alternative Breaks were to return to this location and project, what changes would you
suggest?
o This question gives fantastic on the quality of the work site that was visited during
the trip and the organizational and personal skills of the community partner that
provided the service. The answers to this question should be kept on file for when
choosing whether or not to return to a work site in the future.





Action Plan: Self-Evaluation and Evaluation
Since trip leaders are split into groups of two and have a co-trip leader that they work
closely with in many aspects of the planning and on-trip tasks, it might be good to have this
evaluation filled out twice per trip leader. One self-evaluation and one evaluation by the co-trip
leader. The co-trip leader evaluation would be extremely useful if the student fills out a self-
evaluation that is more optimistic than what others perceived. While the supervisor might notice
where the student worker excelled or struggled in regards to the section titled preparation for
the trip, they most likely are not on the same trip as the student, so it would still be best to put
faith in the co-trip leader evaluation.
It should also be noted that the relationship between both co-trip leaders should also be
examined before taking action based on the ratings and comments. If neither of them got along,
then there may be some bias in the evaluation and the exit interview may want to be utilized a
little more. If lack of cooperation between trip leaders becomes an inherent problem, then the
process through which the supervisor uses to pair co-trip leaders together might need to be
reevaluated.
After this form, I would say that the trip leaders own self-evaluation might be better used
to see if they were comfortable in the situation and, if not, how the supervisor could best
accommodate future trip leaders who might not have experience as leaders so that they will be
better prepared for the trip. If a supervisor has suspicions that a trip leader might have not
fulfilled their duties, then the co-trip leader evaluation could be used as a good resource to
determine whether or not the selection process should stay the same, or if the trip leader whom
the evaluation is about should be invited back for future trips.
While the student is evaluated based on their own abilities and performance, we believe
that it is crucial for the whole selection, orientation, and evaluation process to be pressured into
change based on the consensus gathered from these evaluations. The Alternative Breaks
movement is constantly evolving, so the supervisor should always be looking on how to improve
the selection, orientation, and evaluation process to ensure that great potential student leaders are
being brought in and cultivated into amazing trip leaders.
Preparation for the trip:
Self-Evaluation:
This section of the self-evaluation portion would be great for determining how the trip
leader viewed their own participation in all of the pre-trip tasks that they were assigned. If a
student tends to mark statements on the awesome portion of the spectrum, then this would be a
good sign that they knew what the tasks and duties assigned to them were. If a student tends to
fall on the needs to work on side of the spectrum, they might have needed more guidance or
clearer directions. However, there is always a chance that the student might have not met
expectations in this area, but checks off that they did.
Co-Trip Leader:
This section of the evaluation by their peer might be more likely to determine what the
student did right or wrong in the planning. If neither student felt that they had a good idea of the
planning process, then the planning process should be re-evaluated. If the co-trip leader left
negative feedback in the situation, that is when the supervisor should examine whether or not
they both received training at the same sources, were interviewed by the same people, or
received the same list of expectations at the time of hiring.

Alternative Break Trip:
Self-Evaluation: This section might reveal some insight on the quality of the trip. If the trip
leader fills out that they need work on areas such as remaining motivated, sharing the
objectives of daily tasks, and following a group schedule, then the service project might have
been viewed as not meaningful or uninspiring by the whole group. If a number of trip leaders fill
this out, then this could be used by the supervisor as a sign that it is time to figure out a better
way to select work sites.

Co-Trip Leader: Once again, this might give more insight than the self-evaluation. The co-trip
leader might have a more accurate opinion on how the trip leader being evaluated handled their
tasks on the trip. As mentioned before, this section would also be useful in perhaps determining
whether or not to change the process of selecting a site.

Role as a Leader:
Self-Evaluation: This goes hand-in-hand with the alternative break trip section. This might
better be used to evaluate the trip leaders confidence as a leader and, if it is scored low, the
supervisor might want to implement things like pre-trip community service at a site close to the
university so that the trip leader can build their confidence and leadership skills.
Co-trip Leader: The co-trip leader might have not been able to see how the worker dealt with
each and every participant that approached them, but they should be able to get a general sense
of how the person handled a leadership position just by working closely with them. Since the trip
leader is first and foremost a student leader, if this peer review is poor, then the supervisor might
want to consider whether or not this student will be invited back to fill the role for future trips.

Student Trip Leader Skills and Traits:
Self-Evaluation: If the marks on this self-evaluation are poor, the supervisor would want to
heavily consider reshaping the part of the pre-trip training where the trip leaders are educated on
the alternative breaks movement, the social issue, and the process of planning and executing the
trip. If the trip leader did not understand these aspects of the trip, then it is likely that the
participants did not have a clear understanding of them either. This is on the supervisor to change
the education process in the future to make sure that this mistake does not occur again.
Co-Trip Leader: If a co-trip leader marks this section of the evaluation poorly, then the
supervisor should take action to check the attendance records of this trip leader in regards to the
training and orientation meetings. The supervisor must then determine if the trip leader simply
did not understand the information, of if they were not attending these meetings at a satisfactory
rate.

About Your Experience as a Trip Leader:
This part would be left out of the evaluation that the co-trip leader would be conducting.
These questions are based on personal experience and it would not be practical to have the peer
worker filling these out in regards to their opinions on the performance of another. These
questions reiterate the exit interview questions. These are included because the supervisor would
benefit to have the answers in writing so that he/she could improve the experience of future trip
leaders using that feedback.

Re-Evaluation:
Since most of our trip leaders are from Spring Break trips, there might not be a large
enough sample size during the winter and summer to find out if our changes actually worked.
Since the selection and training process take a long time, a formal re-evaluation should be
scheduled for after the next spring break. Decisions about changes should be made as soon as
possible, seeing as selection usually occurs right before summer or the beginning of fall session.
However, since the main duties of the majority of the trip leader do not occur until spring break,
it might be best to wait the whole year.


Consequences of Inaction:
The consequences of inaction can be as follows:
If there is any flaw discovered in the training process that goes unfixed, then it might take
away from the participants experience. The participants are paying a fee to gain a certain
experience and, if they dont receive it, they may not return or tell others not to go on
future trips.
There are many different community service groups on college campuses and, although
they all share similar goals, there might be a competition over the limited number of
prospective members. If the trip leader is not trained properly or acts inappropriately, this
might cause prospective members to become involved in other community service
activities such as mission trips or study abroad programs.
If a particular trip leader does something that calls for termination, but he/she is required
to keep their position, this may convince other trip leaders that the program does not take
its policies seriously and may be more inclined to underperform or act inappropriately
themselves. If a problem is serious enough and the student is retained, this might also
lead to bad media coverage by campus newspapers and this could seriously jeopardize
the future of the program and its funding.
It was mentioned earlier that some of the evaluation questions could be used to determine
whether or not a group will return to a work site for future trips. If a worksite appears to
be unaccommodating or unable to offer direct community service and a group continues
to return, then this could lead to another problem of lack of participation on the trip.
When this occurs, the supervisor should make every effort possible to find another work
site or community partner to work with.