Meet the Carnegie
Classification for Community
Engagement
June 13, 2008
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,
Advantages of Using Carnegie
• Affirms and documents diversity of
approaches to community engagement
• Recognizes good work while encouraging ongoing development
• Legitimacy of Carnegie
• Accountability strategy
• Catalyst for change
• Organizational development strategy
• Institutional identity and market niche
Institutional Resources
Accreditation Reviews
Internal Organizational
Reviews
Institutional Strategic
planning
Unique Organization Issues
Leadership
oFaculty
oAdministrators
Interpretive Strategies
Management of
Meaning
Symbolic Actions
Organizational
Improvement
Learning Structures
 Community of
Practice for
Engagement
Outcomes
Engagement a Core Institutional
Value
Engagement Embedded in
Strategic Plan
Faculty Pipeline for Engagement
Leadership
Increased Learning about
Engagement and Accreditation
External Environments
Accreditation
Achievement/
Recognition
Strategic Scholarship and
Grant Opportunities
Promote New Initiatives
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
Models for Assessing
Community Engagement at
the Institutional Level
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.
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
Tools/ Instruments
• Michigan State University OEM
• IUPUI
• Other campus based efforts –
see the National Service-Learning
Clearinghouse for examples
(servicelearning.org)
• Carnegie Classification Framework
“ 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.”
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”
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.
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.
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
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, Pres.
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
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
Meet the Framework…
Framework
• Foundational Indicators
• Categories of Community
Engagement
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.
Indicator: Institutional Identity
and Culture
Documentation Examples:
•
•
•
•
•
missions (institutional, departmental)
marketing materials (brochures, etc.)
website
community perceptions
celebrations, recognitions, events
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
Indicator: Institutional
Commitment (continued)
Documentation Examples:

•
•
•
promotion and tenure policies
transcript notations of student engagement
student “voice” or leadership role
search/recruitment priorities
The second stage – selecting a
category of Community
Engagement
1. Curricular Engagement (5 institutions)
2. Outreach and Partnerships (9 institutions)
3. Both (62 institutions)
The documentation process is extensive and substantive,
focused on significant qualities, activities, and institutional
provisions that insure an institutionalized approach to
community engagement.
Curricular Engagement
• …teaching, learning, and scholarship
engage faculty, students, and
community in mutually beneficial and
respectful collaboration. Their
interactions address communityidentified needs, deepen students’ civic
and academic learning, enhance
community well-being, and enrich the
scholarship of the institution.
Examples Of Curricular Engagement
• Service learning or Community-based
learning
• Internships
• Community Leadership programs
• Community-based capstones
• Faculty scholarship related to curricular
engagement
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.).
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
Using Carnegie…
Questions???
What was hardest to answer?
Issues?
What strategies need to be
employed to make needed
changes?
How can intermediaries and
networks help?
Meet Contacts & Resources…
Carnegiefoundation.org
driscoll@carnegiefoundation.org
Lorilee Sandmann
sandmann@uga.edu
James Zuiches
James_Zuiches@ncsu.edu
• 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.
•
http://www.pdx.edu/cae/ A Guide to Reciprocal CommunityCampus 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.info Achieving the Promise of Authentic CommunityHigher 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.