Carnegie’s 2006 Community Engagement Classification: Lessons

for Leadership

Amy Driscoll, Consulting Scholar Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching

Strategies for Institutional EngagementA Conference for Deans, Chairs, and SL Coordinators

Oklahoma CityFebruary 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”

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”

Institutional Commitments con’t

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-basedlearning (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 AreasTotal: 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

Alignment of institutional identity, culture, and commitments

Common definitions, language, and priorities

Attention to record keeping and reporting

Strengths of Successfully Classified Institutions

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

Areas Needing Improvement

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 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.”

“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

ClassificationMarch 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.orgwww.carnegiefoundation.org