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
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”
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.”
Foundational Indicators

Institutional Identity and Culture

Institutional Commitment
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
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”
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”
Indicator: Institutional
Commitment (continued)
Documentation Examples:

•
•
•
promotion and tenure policies
transcript notations of student engagement
student “voice” or leadership role
search/recruitment priorities
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.”
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
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
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
Classification Distributions

5 Curricular Engagement

9 Outreach Partnerships

62 Both Areas
Total: 76 Institutions
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
Observations: Strength and
Consistencies








Mission – Vision – Values
Marketing – catalogs, websites
Celebration, awards
Budgetary support
Infrastructure
Strategic Plan
Leadership – Chancellor, President
Faculty Development
Strengths of Successfully
Classified Institutions
Alignment of institutional identity, culture,
and commitments
Common definitions, language, and
priorities
Attention to record keeping and
reporting
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
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
Benefits of the CE Classification






Public recognition and visibility
Accountability
Catalyst for change
Institutional Identity
Self-assessment and self-study
Parallels with accreditation
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
“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 selfstudy 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.”
“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.”
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