Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement

1. Meet the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement June 13, 2008

2. Meet Why to Do It—Serves Multiple Purposes • Use for classification, development and institutionalization of engagement • Useful for applying or preparing to in the future—either way helpful • Highlights areas to improve, framework itself helpful as an indication of where to focus—the development does not stop with classification! • Connects to other assessment strategies • Connects to accreditation—North Central Higher Learning Commission, WASC,SACS, NEASC, • Collaborate UNC system, New England, CSU web support,

3. Advantages of Using Carnegie • Affirms and documents diversity of approaches to community engagement • Recognizes good work while encouraging on-going development • Legitimacy of Carnegie • Accountability strategy • Catalyst for change • Organizational development strategy • Institutional identity and market niche

4. Interpretive Strategies • Management of Meaning • Symbolic Actions • Organizational Improvement • Institutional Resources • Accreditation Reviews • Internal Organizational Reviews • Institutional Strategic planning • Unique Organization Issues • External Environments • Accreditation • Achievement/ • Recognition • Learning Structures • Community of Practice for Engagement • Strategic Scholarship and Grant Opportunities • Promote New Initiatives • Leadership • Faculty • Administrators • Outcomes • Engagement a Core Institutional Value • Engagement Embedded in Strategic Plan • Faculty Pipeline for Engagement Leadership • Increased Learning about Engagement and Accreditation

5. Self Study Process • Focuses institution-wide attention • Assures public of institutional quality • Supports institutional improvement • Creates critical data sets and on-going record keeping • Facilitates decision making and planning • Spurs institutional strategic change

6. Models for Assessing Community Engagement at the Institutional Level

7. Assessment “Quality and outcomes can best be measured through structured assessment activities that generate and use “information about performance so that it is fed back into the system from which it comes to improve that system.” Barbara Cambridge (1999). Effective Assessment, in Bringle, et al., Colleges and Universities as Citizens.

8. Frameworks • Kellogg Forum • Committee on Institutional Collaboration and NASULGC • Furco Rubric for Institutionalizing Service-Learning • Gelmon Rubric Capacity for Community Engagement • Holland Matrix on Relevance to Mission • Campus Compact - Wingspread Statements - Indicators of Engagement - MN Campus Compact Civic Engagement Indicators • NCA – Higher Learning Commission • Carnegie Elective Classification – Community Engagement

9. Tools/ Instruments • Michigan State University OEM • IUPUI • Other campus based efforts – see the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse for examples (servicelearning.org) • Carnegie Classification Framework

10. “ Despite our commitment to community engagement, we had not previously compiled information about the many types and examples of community engagement that occur here. The self-study tells us that we have much to celebrate. It also provides us with a tool for analyzing where we can further increase and improve our efforts.”

11. “The Carnegie process is now informing university-wide strategic planning and is being turned into a set of recommendations. It has revitalized attention to the core urban mission of the institution and created widespread energy to deep community engagement.”

12. Meet the Classification…Origin And Purpose Of The Carnegie Classification • Developed in the early 1970’s by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education to inform its research program • A tool for simplifying the complexity of US higher education • Based on empirical data on what institutions do • Later published for use by others “conducting research on higher education”

13. Rethinking The Classification • Responding with several independent parallel classification schemes • Providing new flexibility and responsibility • A multidimensional approach using multiple lenses • Better matching of classification to purpose

14. Elective Classification for Community Engagement An elective classification is one that relies on voluntary participation by institutions, and does not include the full universe of institutions. The term, community engagement, is proposed because it offers the widest coverage, the broadest conception of interactions with community, and promotes inclusivity in the classification.

15. New Elective Carnegie Classification – Community Engagement Community Engagement describes the collaboration between higher education institutions and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

16. Intentions of Classification of Community Engagement • Affirmation and documentation of the diversity of campuses and their approaches to community engagement • Indicators that recognize the “good work” that has been done while encouraging ongoing development toward the ideals of community engagement • Encouragement of inquiry and learning in the process of documentation

17. Intentions (continued) • Instrumentation and documentation that provide useful information for institutions • Documentation that describes the scope of institutional engagement • A framework that builds on current work of other organizations for a shared base of measurement or documentation • A documentation process that is practical and makes use of existing data

18. Inaugural Classification Process(2006-2007) • Letters of Intent Received (4-06) 145 • Applicants Approved (4-06) 107 • Applications Received (9-06) 88 • Classified Institutions (12-06) 76

19. Classification Distributions • 5 Curricular Engagement • 9 Outreach Partnerships • 62 Both Areas Total: 76 Institutions

20. Newly Classified Institutions 44 public institutions 32 private institutions • 36 doctoral granting institutions • 21 masters colleges and universities • 13 baccalaureate of arts and sciences • 5 associate’s (community) colleges • 1 specialized institution with arts focus

21. Observations: Strength and Consistencies • Mission – Vision – Values • Marketing – catalogs, websites • Celebration, awards • Budgetary support • Infrastructure • Strategic Plan • Leadership – Chancellor, Pres. • Faculty Development

22. Strengths of Successfully Classified Institutions • Alignment of institutional identity, culture, and commitments • Common definitions, language, and priorities • Attention to record keeping and reporting

23. Areas Needing Improvement • Assessment that is intentional, systematic, institutionalized, and used for improvement • Multi-levels of assessment – student learning outcomes, programmatic effectiveness, and institutional intentions • Support of and for recruit/hiring practices and promotion/tenure rewards

24. Relationships with Community: Improvements Needed • Assessing community perceptions of institutional engagement • Promoting community involvement in the institutional agenda • Ensuring mutuality and reciprocity in community partnerships

25. Tips from Recently Classified Institutions • Identify leadership for project • Customize to advance campus goals • Build upon institutional research/processes • Identify multiple purposes • Use as motivation for change or new directions • Conduct interviews, scan websites, develop instruments, etc. • Block out time and resources

26. Meet the Framework…

27. Framework • Foundational Indicators • Categories of Community Engagement

28. The first stage – meeting these Foundational Indicators 1. Institutional Identity and Culture 2. Institutional commitment These indicators must be demonstrated by both required and optional documentation.

29. Indicator: Institutional Identity and Culture Documentation Examples: • missions (institutional, departmental) • marketing materials (brochures, etc.) • website • community perceptions • celebrations, recognitions, events

30. Indicator: Institutional Commitment Documentation Examples: • executive leadership • strategic plan • budgetary allocations (internal/external) • infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.) • community voice in planning • faculty development • assessment/recording mechanisms

31. Indicator: Institutional Commitment(continued) Documentation Examples: • promotion and tenure policies • transcript notations of student engagement • student “voice” or leadership role • search/recruitment priorities

32. The second stage – selecting a category of Community Engagement • Curricular Engagement (5 institutions) • Outreach and Partnerships (9 institutions) • Both (62 institutions) The documentation process is extensive and substantive, focused on significant qualities, activities, and institutional provisions that insure an institutionalizedapproach to community engagement.

33. Curricular Engagement • …teaching, learning, and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the institution.

34. Examples Of Curricular Engagement • Service learning or Community-based learning • Internships • Community Leadership programs • Community-based capstones • Faculty scholarship related to curricular engagement

35. Outreach and Partnership • Outreach focuses on the application and provision of institutional resources for community use with benefits to both campus and community. • Partnership focuses on collaborative interactions with community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources (research, economic development, capacity building, etc.).

36. Examples Of Outreach and Partnerships • Professional Development Centers • Program evaluations • Collaborative Libraries, Museums • Extension courses • Co-curricular service • Partnerships • Scholarship related to outreach and partnerships

37. Using Carnegie…Questions???

38. What was hardest to answer? Issues?What strategies need to be employed to make needed changes?How can intermediaries and networks help?

39. Meet Contacts & Resources… Carnegiefoundation.org driscoll@carnegiefoundation.org Lorilee Sandmannsandmann@uga.edu James Zuiches James_Zuiches@ncsu.edu

40. www.compact.org/resources/Carnegie Applications, examples of the 2006 successful Carnegie applications for Community Engagement. • Campus Compact. (2004). The community’s college: Indicators of engagement at two year institutions. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. • Campus Compact. (2001). Assessing service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

41. http://www.pdx.edu/cae/A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus Partnerships, a introductory guide to describing, developing and sustaining reciprocal partnerships. The guide provides understandings and practices that emerged from Portland State University’s Partnership Forum that brought together higher education and community partners to study partnerships. • www.ccph.infoAchieving the Promise of Authentic Community-Higher Education Partnerships: Community Partners Speak Out, a comprehensive report from Community/Campus Partnerships for Health and the 2006 Wingspread Summit to advance authentic community-higher education partnerships. The report contains observations of today’s partnerships, analysis of “what’s working” and “what’s not,” challenges, and a vision for the future. • www.communityengagedscholarship.info The Community Engaged Scholarship Toolkit from Community/Campus Partnerships for Health is to provide health professional faculty with a set of tools to carefully plan and document their community-engaged scholarship and produce strong portfolios for promotion and tenure.