Carnegie’s 2006 Community Engagement Classification: Lessons for Leadership

1. Carnegie’s 2006 Community Engagement Classification: Lessons for Leadership Amy Driscoll, Consulting Scholar Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Strategies for Institutional Engagement A Conference for Deans, Chairs, and SL Coordinators Oklahoma City February 4, 2008

2. 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”

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Definition 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.

6. Definition(continued) Community Engagement may achieve the following: • Enhanced teaching and learning of relevant curriculum • Expanded research and scholarship • Preparation of engaged citizens • Response to societal issues • Contributions to the public good • Strengthened civic responsibility

7. 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

8. 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

9. Framework • Foundational Indicators • Categories of Community Engagement CRITERION FIVE: ENGAGEMENT AND SERVICE “As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.”

10. Foundational Indicators • Institutional Identity and Culture • Institutional Commitment

11. Indicator: Institutional Identity and Culture Documentation Requirements • missions (institutional, departmental) “the organization’s commitments are shaped by its mission” • marketing materials (website, brochures) • community perceptions “the organization practices periodic environmental scanning to understand the changing needs of its constituencies and their community” • celebrations, recognitions, events

12. Indicator: Institutional Commitment Documentation Requirements: • executive leadership • strategic plan “Planning processes project ongoing engagement and service” • budgetary allocations (internal/external) “The organization’s resources support effective programs of engagement and service”

13. Institutional Commitments con’t infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.) • “The organization’s structures and processes enable effective connections with its communities” community voice in planning • “…demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies it serves • faculty development • assessment/recording mechanisms • “Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides”

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

15. Categories Of Community Engagement • Curricular Engagement “The organization’s educational programs connect students with external communities.” • Outreach and Partnerships “The organization’s outreach programs respond to identified community needs.” “In responding to external constituencies, the organization is well served by programs such as continuing education, outreach, customized training, and extension services.”

16. Examples Of Curricular Engagement • Service learning or Community-based learning (with institutional definition) • Internships • Community Leadership programs • Community-based capstones • Faculty scholarship related to curricular engagement

17. 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

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, President • 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. Benefits of the CE Classification • Public recognition and visibility • Accountability • Catalyst for change • Institutional Identity • Self-assessment and self-study • Parallels with accreditation

26. 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

27. “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.”

28. “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.”

29. Contacts-Information for 2008 Classification March 1, 2008: deadline for “intent” April 1, 2008: applicants notified with survey September 1, 2008: applications due December 15, 2008: successfully classified institutions announced driscoll@carnegiefoundation.org www.carnegiefoundation.org