Communications Update

1. Communications Update Carnegie Classification Community Engagement This presentation is designed to provide you with an overview of the upcoming 2010 Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement. Campus Compact has been appointed by the Carnegie Foundation to offer informational trainings to campuses interested in applying for the 2010 Classification. Campus Compact is a national coalition of more than 1,100 college and university presidents - representing some 6 million students - dedicated to promoting community service, civic engagement, and service-learning in higher education. We invite you to visit our website at www.compact.org for more information about Compact and the Carnegie Classification. Our website also houses one of the most extensive resources on the topics of community engagement and service learning from curriculum issues, actual model syllabi, and a plethora of resources. This presentation is designed to provide you with an overview of the upcoming 2010 Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement. Campus Compact has been appointed by the Carnegie Foundation to offer informational trainings to campuses interested in applying for the 2010 Classification. Campus Compact is a national coalition of more than 1,100 college and university presidents - representing some 6 million students - dedicated to promoting community service, civic engagement, and service-learning in higher education. We invite you to visit our website at www.compact.org for more information about Compact and the Carnegie Classification. Our website also houses one of the most extensive resources on the topics of community engagement and service learning from curriculum issues, actual model syllabi, and a plethora of resources.

2. Overview Definitions History of Carnegie Classifications Transformational change Requirements Challenges Timeline Resources I will begin be reviewing definitions so we have share a common language for the presentation. Since the very nature of striving for institutional community engagement can be transformative for an institution, a review of the basic tenets of transformational change will be visited. Then we will spend time reviewing the requirements and possible challenges of the process. The timeline for the application will be presented along with additional supportive resources. I will begin be reviewing definitions so we have share a common language for the presentation. Since the very nature of striving for institutional community engagement can be transformative for an institution, a review of the basic tenets of transformational change will be visited. Then we will spend time reviewing the requirements and possible challenges of the process. The timeline for the application will be presented along with additional supportive resources.

3. Definitions Service Learning Community Engagement Partnerships Community Impact Systematic Assessment Lets begin by reviewing some key definitions for today�s presentation. Service Learning is � A credit bearing, educational, experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility� Community Engagement describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education 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. Partnerships are ongoing long-term relationships in which each partner brings individual goals, needs, assets and strategies, and through collaborative processes blends them into common goals and outcomes. So you might ask, what is is expected? How are the by the terms Institutional Impact and Community Impact defined?Institutional Impact describes the effect or influence of the partnership on institutional factors�curriculum, research focus, budgetary decisions, programmatic changes, strategic plans, student learning, etc. Community Impact describes the effect or influence of the partnership on community resources, services, capacity for service, organization, strategic plans, and clients. First, "assessment" refers to the gathering of information or data. The data could be related to community perceptions of the institution, or to measuring/describing the impact of community engagement on the institution, or to students' understandings gained while engaged with community. "Systematic" refers to an ongoing, regular, and routine assessment process, such as an annual community perception survey, or a student assessment at the end of every community engaged course. Now that we have defined a common language, lets take a look at the brief history of the Carnegie Classification.Lets begin by reviewing some key definitions for today�s presentation. Service Learning is � A credit bearing, educational, experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility� Community Engagement describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education 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. Partnerships are ongoing long-term relationships in which each partner brings individual goals, needs, assets and strategies, and through collaborative processes blends them into common goals and outcomes. So you might ask, what is is expected? How are the by the terms Institutional Impact and Community Impact defined?

4. Brief History The Carnegie Classification (1970) advancing educational research efforts� The classification has become one of the most reputable, comprehensive, and accessible systems. It identifies the characteristics of an institution. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Classification began in 1970, as a way of advancing educational research efforts.� Over the years, the Classification has become one of the most reputable, comprehensive, and accessible systems of identifying the characteristics of an institution.� In some ways it represents an institutional driver's license but instead of height, gender, hair color it describes the size of the institution, if it is specialized, 2 or 4 year, private, or public, and other designations such as if is a research or teaching institution. But it is much more than that. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Classification began in 1970, as a way of advancing educational research efforts.� Over the years, the Classification has become one of the most reputable, comprehensive, and accessible systems of identifying the characteristics of an institution.� In some ways it represents an institutional driver's license but instead of height, gender, hair color it describes the size of the institution, if it is specialized, 2 or 4 year, private, or public, and other designations such as if is a research or teaching institution. But it is much more than that.

5. How is it Used? Defining institutional identity Benchmarking Metrics development Creating operational goals The Carnegie Classification system has evolved into one of the most highly regarded tools for identifying peer institutions, benchmarking, and developing metrics for colleges and universities. Some institutions intentionally set operational goals that will alter their classification so that the reputation and focus of the institution will be moved to the next level.� The Classification has been a useful tool for institutions when developing benchmarking strategies such as increasing retention of first year students, or increasing the percentage of students that graduate in four-years. Schools are able to look at the numbers of other institutions and develop metrics for comparison on specific identifiers and create operational goals to achieve new terms of measurement. The Carnegie Classification system has evolved into one of the most highly regarded tools for identifying peer institutions, benchmarking, and developing metrics for colleges and universities. Some institutions intentionally set operational goals that will alter their classification so that the reputation and focus of the institution will be moved to the next level.� The Classification has been a useful tool for institutions when developing benchmarking strategies such as increasing retention of first year students, or increasing the percentage of students that graduate in four-years. Schools are able to look at the numbers of other institutions and develop metrics for comparison on specific identifiers and create operational goals to achieve new terms of measurement.

6. Elective Category In 2006, Carnegie instituted its first elective category. Community Engagement This will be the first of several new classifications that can provide a flexible, multidimensional approach to better representing institutional identities. The elective category is markedly different.� Instead of using national data to determine ranking, institutions now submit data on community engagement to Carnegie for review. It is entirely based on self-reports.� A Carnegie Classification committee then reviews submissions through a set of measurements that identify Community Engagement as a central feature of institutional identity and culture. The elective category is markedly different.� Instead of using national data to determine ranking, institutions now submit data on community engagement to Carnegie for review. It is entirely based on self-reports.� A Carnegie Classification committee then reviews submissions through a set of measurements that identify Community Engagement as a central feature of institutional identity and culture.

7. Elective Carnegie Classification  Community Engagement Foundational Indicators Institutional Commitment Institutional Identity and Culture Curricular Engagement Outreach and Partnerships In the Carnegie Classification on Community Engagement, there are four key indicators for measuring community engagement. The first is the commitment of the institution, the second speaks to the identity and culture of the university. Then a closer look is taken at the area of curricular engagement and actual courses and research. The final indicator speaks to community outreach, collaborations, and partnerships. Institutional identity and cultural are a central part of this elective classification. In order for community engagement to be such a cornerstone of the institution, it often requires significant changes, in essence, transformational change. Before we examine the chief indicators of community engagement, we will review the essential components and markers of transformational change. In the Carnegie Classification on Community Engagement, there are four key indicators for measuring community engagement. The first is the commitment of the institution, the second speaks to the identity and culture of the university. Then a closer look is taken at the area of curricular engagement and actual courses and research. The final indicator speaks to community outreach, collaborations, and partnerships. Institutional identity and cultural are a central part of this elective classification. In order for community engagement to be such a cornerstone of the institution, it often requires significant changes, in essence, transformational change. Before we examine the chief indicators of community engagement, we will review the essential components and markers of transformational change.

8. Transformational Change (1) Alters the culture of the institution Changes underlying assumptions Changes institutional behaviors, processes, and products (2) Deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution (3) Intentional (4) Occurs over time Institutional identity and cultural are key to this classification. Placing community engagement at the forefront of the institution so it is reflected in mission and all that is stands for requires change. This is not change with with a small c but CHANGE with a capital C. This type of change, to become an institution that is committed to community engagement, often requires transformational CHANGE. In order to understand the gravity of this, I will refer to work of Eckel, P., Hill, B., and Green, M., 1998. On Change: En Route to Transformation, An Occasional Paper Series of the ACE Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation, American Council for Education. Eckel, Hill and Green argue that �Transformation requires major shifts in an institution�s culture�the common set of beliefs and values that creates a shared interpretation and understanding of events and actions. Institution-wide patterns of perceiving, thinking, and feeling; shared understandings; collective assumptions; and common interpretive frameworks are the ingredients of this �invisible glue� called institutional culture.� The four major components of the transformational change model. 1) it alters the culture of the institution, which changes the underlying assumptions which in turn changes institutional behaviors, processes, and products The change is deep and pervasive through out the institution 3) It is intentional and finally, it occurs over time Institutional identity and cultural are key to this classification. Placing community engagement at the forefront of the institution so it is reflected in mission and all that is stands for requires change. This is not change with with a small c but CHANGE with a capital C. This type of change, to become an institution that is committed to community engagement, often requires transformational CHANGE. In order to understand the gravity of this, I will refer to work of Eckel, P., Hill, B., and Green, M., 1998. On Change: En Route to Transformation, An Occasional Paper Series of the ACE Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation, American Council for Education. Eckel, Hill and Green argue that �Transformation requires major shifts in an institution�s culture�the common set of beliefs and values that creates a shared interpretation and understanding of events and actions. Institution-wide patterns of perceiving, thinking, and feeling; shared understandings; collective assumptions; and common interpretive frameworks are the ingredients of this �invisible glue� called institutional culture.� The four major components of the transformational change model. 1) it alters the culture of the institution, which changes the underlying assumptions which in turn changes institutional behaviors, processes, and products The change is deep and pervasive through out the institution 3) It is intentional and finally, it occurs over time

9. In the book, �The Challenge of Organizational Change� by Kanter, Stein and Jick organizational change theorist Ecklel, Hill and Green offer this matrix for understanding the difference between change with a small c as seen in boxes 1, 2, and 3 and a significant large C Change will be � in box 4 Some examples would be 1= Isolated service learning courses, volunteer work 2= Development of a community partnerships for a specific purpose, off-campus internships, creation of a study abroad program, creating an office on community engagement 3= Expansion of courses, creating broader partnerships, increasing study abroad participation with faculty and students, changing institutional policies to reward study abroad participation, such as re-entry programs regarding housing and faculty mini grant. 4= Inclusion of community members and leaders with Univ. planning, co-creating research with faculty, infusion of service learning across the curriculum, graduation requirement, reward faculty though promotion and tenure, having a member of the president cabinet provide leadership for community engagement efforts. It is reflected in the Institutional mission, faculty rewards/tenure, promotion and attraction of faculty, staff ,and students, curriculum requirement,In the book, �The Challenge of Organizational Change� by Kanter, Stein and Jick organizational change theorist Ecklel, Hill and Green offer this matrix for understanding the difference between change with a small c as seen in boxes 1, 2, and 3 and a significant large C Change will be � in box 4 Some examples would be 1= Isolated service learning courses, volunteer work 2= Development of a community partnerships for a specific purpose, off-campus internships, creation of a study abroad program, creating an office on community engagement 3= Expansion of courses, creating broader partnerships, increasing study abroad participation with faculty and students, changing institutional policies to reward study abroad participation, such as re-entry programs regarding housing and faculty mini grant. 4= Inclusion of community members and leaders with Univ. planning, co-creating research with faculty, infusion of service learning across the curriculum, graduation requirement, reward faculty though promotion and tenure, having a member of the president cabinet provide leadership for community engagement efforts. It is reflected in the Institutional mission, faculty rewards/tenure, promotion and attraction of faculty, staff ,and students, curriculum requirement,

10. Community Engagement Collaboration between institutions of higher education 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. The Carnegie Foundation defines community engagement as Collaboration between institutions of higher education 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. The Carnegie Foundation defines community engagement as Collaboration between institutions of higher education 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.

11. Elective Classifications Elective classifications enable the Foundation's classification system to recognize important aspects of institutional mission and action that are not represented in the national data. This elective classification goes beyond the standard classification system. First of all it is elective, schools must apply which is not true in all other classifications through Carnegie. The elective classification is identifying the institution based on this very specific identity.This elective classification goes beyond the standard classification system. First of all it is elective, schools must apply which is not true in all other classifications through Carnegie. The elective classification is identifying the institution based on this very specific identity.

12. 2006 Community Engagement Classification 107 were accepted to apply 89 campuses applied for the �classification� 76 were granted the new elective status 67 were Campus Compact members In 2006, the first elective classification was offered. 107 schools were accepted to apply for the classification. After further review, 89 campus choose to submitted a completed application and 76 institutions were awarded this status. 107 were accepted to apply 89 campuses applied for the �classification� 76 were granted the new elective status 67 were Campus Compact members In 2006, the first elective classification was offered. 107 schools were accepted to apply for the classification. After further review, 89 campus choose to submitted a completed application and 76 institutions were awarded this status. 107 were accepted to apply 89 campuses applied for the �classification� 76 were granted the new elective status 67 were Campus Compact members

13. 2006 Community Engagement Classification 44 are public 32 are private 36 are doctoral granting universities 21 are master�s colleges or universities 13 are baccalaureate colleges 5 are community colleges 1 has a specialized arts focus Of those institutions, 44 are public 32 are private 36 are doctoral granting universities 21 are master�s colleges or universities 13 are baccalaureate colleges 5 are community colleges 1 has a specialized arts focus Of those institutions, 44 are public 32 are private 36 are doctoral granting universities 21 are master�s colleges or universities 13 are baccalaureate colleges 5 are community colleges 1 has a specialized arts focus

14. 2008 Elective Classifications Numbers 120 successfully classified 69 public 58 private 38 doctoral-granting 52 masters 18 baccalaureate 9 community college 3 specialized focus- arts, medicine, technology In 2008 the call for applications for Carnegie's elective Community Engagement Classification was announced. Two hundred and seventeen (217) institutions declared such intentions and on April 1 applications were sent to those colleges and universities. By the Sept. 1 deadline, 70 institutions had withdrawn from the application process, primarily declaring a lack of readiness for the classification requirements. One hundred and forty-seven (147) institutions did apply and the review process was conducted through Dec. 1.The applications were submitted to a national advisory panel who served as consultants to the classification team. One hundred and twenty (120) institutions were successfully classified in Community Engagement, while 27 institutions were not classified in this process.

15. Why seek the Community Engagement Classification? Legitimacy Accountability Catalyst for change Institutional identity and market niche Institutional self-assessment and self-study. So why seek the Community Engagement Classification? The classification is awarded on several key markers. The first marker is Legitimacy- : If your campus has made a commitment to community engagement, the classification, with the Carnegie Foundation�s credibility, provides you with a new level of legitimacy and public recognition and visibility for your work. Accountability : : The classification is one way to demonstrate that the institution is fulfilling its mission to serve the public good � and this is applicable across all institutional types with added importance for public, state colleges and universities. It can serve as a political device to justify activities to external stakeholders. It can also serve as a Catalyst for Change; : The classification provides a tool for fostering institutional alignment for community-based teaching, learning and scholarship � it can be a catalyst for efforts to improve teaching and learning through curricular connection to community-based public problem solving (through experiential, collaborative, active, and problem-based learning). It also proclaims the Institutional Identity: : The classification is a way to clarify institutional identity and claim or reclaim a specific mission that distinguishes the institution from peers and establishes a specific competitive, market niche. The application process provides an opportunity for Institutional Self Assessment: : The indicators of community engagement provide a way to bring the disparate parts of the campus together in way that advances a unified agenda. At the same time it allows for the identification of promising practices that can be shared across the institution So why seek the Community Engagement Classification? The classification is awarded on several key markers. The first marker is Legitimacy- : If your campus has made a commitment to community engagement, the classification, with the Carnegie Foundation�s credibility, provides you with a new level of legitimacy and public recognition and visibility for your work. Accountability : : The classification is one way to demonstrate that the institution is fulfilling its mission to serve the public good � and this is applicable across all institutional types with added importance for public, state colleges and universities. It can serve as a political device to justify activities to external stakeholders. It can also serve as a Catalyst for Change; : The classification provides a tool for fostering institutional alignment for community-based teaching, learning and scholarship � it can be a catalyst for efforts to improve teaching and learning through curricular connection to community-based public problem solving (through experiential, collaborative, active, and problem-based learning). It also proclaims the Institutional Identity: : The classification is a way to clarify institutional identity and claim or reclaim a specific mission that distinguishes the institution from peers and establishes a specific competitive, market niche. The application process provides an opportunity for Institutional Self Assessment: : The indicators of community engagement provide a way to bring the disparate parts of the campus together in way that advances a unified agenda. At the same time it allows for the identification of promising practices that can be shared across the institution

16. Challenges Assessing community�s perspective Roles for the community Demonstrating reciprocity Specific outcomes Support for faculty Changes in promotion and tenure Counting engagement as service There are some challenges to the process. Prior applicants have cited that is is often difficult to assess the community�s perspective on engagement. It has also been challenging to developing substantive roles for the community in creating the institution�s plans for engagement. These are areas that may need additional attention. It is important that you are able to demonstrate how you have achieved genuine reciprocity between the institution and the community. Successful applications were very specific when identifying student learning outcomes resulting from community engagement One issue that seems to be the most challenging is in the area of faculty rewards. While your institution is doing some great work in the area of community engagement there needs to be examples of significant support for faculty. Some examples would be the changes in the recognition and reward system for promotion and tenure for faculty. Another area where institutions have struggled is how to go about �counting� engagement as service (not teaching or scholarship). One way to look at these challenges are from the Eckel, Hill and Green�s model of change. There would need to be a transformational change within the institution, thus reflecting a change in institutional identity to one of community engagement to address these specific pervasive issues such as faculty rewards. There are some challenges to the process. Prior applicants have cited that is is often difficult to assess the community�s perspective on engagement. It has also been challenging to developing substantive roles for the community in creating the institution�s plans for engagement. These are areas that may need additional attention. It is important that you are able to demonstrate how you have achieved genuine reciprocity between the institution and the community. Successful applications were very specific when identifying student learning outcomes resulting from community engagement One issue that seems to be the most challenging is in the area of faculty rewards. While your institution is doing some great work in the area of community engagement there needs to be examples of significant support for faculty. Some examples would be the changes in the recognition and reward system for promotion and tenure for faculty. Another area where institutions have struggled is how to go about �counting� engagement as service (not teaching or scholarship). One way to look at these challenges are from the Eckel, Hill and Green�s model of change. There would need to be a transformational change within the institution, thus reflecting a change in institutional identity to one of community engagement to address these specific pervasive issues such as faculty rewards.

17. Questions?

18. Classification Designations Curricular Engagement Outreach Partnerships Curricular Engagement and Outreach Partnerships Previously. There were three separate ratings that can be received based on the work of the institution. An institution could be listed under the Community Engagement classification if it has at least one designation. Designations were based on the nature of the mission, values, and practices of the institution. For instance, one university may have a significant service-learning component. The 2006 and 2008 processes showed that most schools sought classifications in both Curricular Engagement and Outreach Partnerships. In the 2010 round, it is combined. Schools will need to demonstrate institutional commitment and programmatic emphasis in both curricular engagement and outreach partnerships to achieve the Engagement classification.Previously. There were three separate ratings that can be received based on the work of the institution. An institution could be listed under the Community Engagement classification if it has at least one designation. Designations were based on the nature of the mission, values, and practices of the institution. For instance, one university may have a significant service-learning component. The 2006 and 2008 processes showed that most schools sought classifications in both Curricular Engagement and Outreach Partnerships. In the 2010 round, it is combined. Schools will need to demonstrate institutional commitment and programmatic emphasis in both curricular engagement and outreach partnerships to achieve the Engagement classification.

19. Curricular Engagement Teaching, learning and scholarship Address community identified needs Deepen student civic and academic learning Enhance community well-being Curricular engagement speaks to the experiential learning components of formalized courses. Teaching, learning and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. These experiences also enhance the well-being of the community, and therefore have a positive impact on the community. Their interactions address community-identified needs, deepen students� civic and academic learning, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the institution. Curricular engagement speaks to the experiential learning components of formalized courses. Teaching, learning and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. These experiences also enhance the well-being of the community, and therefore have a positive impact on the community. Their interactions address community-identified needs, deepen students� civic and academic learning, enhance community well-being, and enrich the scholarship of the institution.

20. Outreach and Partnerships Outreach: Reciprocal benefits Partnerships: collaborative interactions mutually beneficial exchange Outreach and partnerships speak to the organized affiliations, programs, research, groups and events between the institution and the community. This may be a local community, state, regional. National, or global community. Outreach is defined as the application and provision of institutional resources for community use with benefits to both campus and community. This is better known as reciprocal benefits. Partnerships are defined as the collaborative interactions within community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources (research, capacity building, economic development, etc.). Outreach and partnerships speak to the organized affiliations, programs, research, groups and events between the institution and the community. This may be a local community, state, regional. National, or global community. Outreach is defined as the application and provision of institutional resources for community use with benefits to both campus and community. This is better known as reciprocal benefits. Partnerships are defined as the collaborative interactions within community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources (research, capacity building, economic development, etc.).

21. Self Study Process Focuses institution-wide attention Assures public of institutional quality Supports institutional improvement Creates critical data sets and ongoing record keeping Facilitates decision making and planning Spurs institutional strategic change When setting up your self-study process, remember that it is of the entire institution. It is important that it the community engagement assures the public of the quality of the engagement. Applying for this classification is an opportunity to be reflective and identify areas of institutional improvement. It provides a impetus for creating data sets and for keeping on-going records in the future. This process can facilitate decision making and planning in areas that need additional attention. It can also serve as a catalyst for institutional change.When setting up your self-study process, remember that it is of the entire institution. It is important that it the community engagement assures the public of the quality of the engagement. Applying for this classification is an opportunity to be reflective and identify areas of institutional improvement. It provides a impetus for creating data sets and for keeping on-going records in the future. This process can facilitate decision making and planning in areas that need additional attention. It can also serve as a catalyst for institutional change.

22. Important Components Mission � Vision � Values Marketing � catalogs, websites Celebration, awards Budgetary support Infrastructure Strategic plan Leadership � Chancellor - President Faculty development Mission � Vision � Values Marketing � catalogs, websites Celebration, awards Budgetary support Infrastructure Strategic plan Leadership � Chancellor - President Faculty development These are the important components of the classification. In the next few slides we will take a close look at these areas and share strategies for assessing and documenting the data from these key areas. Mission � Vision � Values Marketing � catalogs, websites Celebration, awards Budgetary support Infrastructure Strategic plan Leadership � Chancellor - President Faculty development These are the important components of the classification. In the next few slides we will take a close look at these areas and share strategies for assessing and documenting the data from these key areas.

23. Institutions that have been successfully classified all have three things in common - they all have an alignment of the institutional identify culture and most importantly the commitments of the institutions. The institution shares common definitions and has set clear priorities regarding community engagement. Finally, there has been special attention paid to assessing and reporting the philosophy, the work, the effectiveness, and the impact of community engagement. This commitment is reflected in the Mission , Vision and Values of the institution. It is reflected in the Marketing of the institution in it�s catalogs, websites. It it visible in its celebration and awards. It is Provided the budgetary support and infrastructure to maximize its effectiveness. It is a prominent element of the Strategic Plan. Institutions that have been successfully classified all have three things in common - they all have an alignment of the institutional identify culture and most importantly the commitments of the institutions. The institution shares common definitions and has set clear priorities regarding community engagement. Finally, there has been special attention paid to assessing and reporting the philosophy, the work, the effectiveness, and the impact of community engagement. This commitment is reflected in the Mission , Vision and Values of the institution. It is reflected in the Marketing of the institution in it�s catalogs, websites. It it visible in its celebration and awards. It is Provided the budgetary support and infrastructure to maximize its effectiveness. It is a prominent element of the Strategic Plan.

24. Some schools have had difficulty assessing what they have accomplished in the areas of learning outcomes and effectiveness. One of the most challenging areas is demonstrating how this work is recognized in recruiting/hiring practices and promotion/tenure rewards. Some schools have had difficulty assessing what they have accomplished in the areas of learning outcomes and effectiveness. One of the most challenging areas is demonstrating how this work is recognized in recruiting/hiring practices and promotion/tenure rewards.

25. Tips from Recently Classified Institutions Appoint a leader Use as motivation for change or new directions Conduct interviews, scan websites, develop instruments, etc. Dedicated time and resources Successful schools have appointed a leader to create a team of individuals to gather and create the final documents for the application. Many schools have commented that the process is one that provided their institution a chance to be reflective, to learn and to rededicate their commitment to community engagement. This is not a process that can be completed quickly. It requires a comprehensive scan of all departments and the community. Institutions will need to dedicate the time and resources to be effective in this process. Successful schools have appointed a leader to create a team of individuals to gather and create the final documents for the application. Many schools have commented that the process is one that provided their institution a chance to be reflective, to learn and to rededicate their commitment to community engagement. This is not a process that can be completed quickly. It requires a comprehensive scan of all departments and the community. Institutions will need to dedicate the time and resources to be effective in this process.

26. Documentation Framework Institutional Identity and Culture Mission statement Campus-wide awards Assess community perceptions Market community engagement Executive leadership There are several questions related to Institutional Identity and Culture that will require that submit documentation to substantiate your submission. Questions 1. Does the institution indicate that community engagement is a priority in its mission statement (or vision)? Yes No Quote the mission (vision) 2. Does the institution formally recognize community engagement through campus-wide awards and celebrations? Yes No Describe with examples 3. a. Does the institution have mechanisms for systematic assessment of community perceptions of the institution�s engagement with community? Yes No b. Does the institution aggregate and use the assessment data? Yes No Describe the mechanisms Describe how the data is used 4. Is community engagement emphasized in the marketing materials (website, brochures, etc.) of the institution? Yes No Describe the materials 5. Does the executive leadership of the institution (President, Provost, Chancellor, Trustees, etc.) explicitly promote community engagement as a priority? Yes No Describe examples such as annual address, published editorial, campus There are several questions related to Institutional Identity and Culture that will require that submit documentation to substantiate your submission. Questions 1. Does the institution indicate that community engagement is a priority in its mission statement (or vision)? Yes No Quote the mission (vision) 2. Does the institution formally recognize community engagement through campus-wide awards and celebrations? Yes No Describe with examples 3. a. Does the institution have mechanisms for systematic assessment of community perceptions of the institution�s engagement with community? Yes No b. Does the institution aggregate and use the assessment data? Yes No Describe the mechanisms Describe how the data is used 4. Is community engagement emphasized in the marketing materials (website, brochures, etc.) of the institution? Yes No Describe the materials 5. Does the executive leadership of the institution (President, Provost, Chancellor, Trustees, etc.) explicitly promote community engagement as a priority? Yes No Describe examples such as annual address, published editorial, campus

27. Documentation Framework Institutional Commitment Campus-wide coordinating infrastructure Internal funding External funding System-wide tracking There are also a series of questions regarding institutional commitment. Question 1. Does the institution have a campus-wide coordinating infrastructure (center, office, etc.) to support and advance community engagement? Describe with purposes, staffing Yes No 2. a. Are there internal budgetary allocations dedicated to supporting institutional engagement with community? Yes No b. Is there external funding dedicated to supporting institutional engagement with community? Yes No c. Is there fundraising directed to community engagement? Yes No Describe (percentage or dollar amount), source, whether it is permanent, and how it is used, etc. Describe specific funding Describe fundraising activities 3. a. Does the institution maintain systematic campus-wide tracking or documentation mechanisms to record and/or track engagement in community? Yes No b. If yes, does the institution use the data from those mechanisms? Yes No Describe Describe There are also a series of questions regarding institutional commitment. Question 1. Does the institution have a campus-wide coordinating infrastructure (center, office, etc.) to support and advance community engagement? Describe with purposes, staffing Yes No 2. a. Are there internal budgetary allocations dedicated to supporting institutional engagement with community? Yes No b. Is there external funding dedicated to supporting institutional engagement with community? Yes No c. Is there fundraising directed to community engagement? Yes No Describe (percentage or dollar amount), source, whether it is permanent, and how it is used, etc. Describe specific funding Describe fundraising activities 3. a. Does the institution maintain systematic campus-wide tracking or documentation mechanisms to record and/or track engagement in community? Yes No b. If yes, does the institution use the data from those mechanisms? Yes No Describe Describe

28. Institutional Commitment Documentation Examples: Commitment on the part of leaders Strategic plan Budgetary allocations (internal/external) Infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.) Community voice in planning Faculty development Assessment/recording mechanism Promotion and tenure policies Transcript notations of student engagement Student �voice� or leadership role Search/recruitment priorities The specific indicator will ask for examples of institutional commitment. You will be asked to to scan publications for statements that highlight the thoughts and work of the executive leadership such as the President, the Provost, Vice President of Student Affairs, and Academic Deans. Is the commitment featured in the strategic plan? Are there specific objectives to accomplish this vision? Has the institutional allocated internal funds to support this commitment? Have you sought and obtained external funding and support? Do you have offices that provide the needed infrastructure to plan, support, and carry out these plans? Is the community involved in the planning. Is community engagement viewed as part of faculty development? Are faculty and staff recruited based on their interest and skills in community engagement? Are faculty rewarded through on-campus mini grants, or through tenure and promotion for their work in this area? How is this work assessed?The specific indicator will ask for examples of institutional commitment. You will be asked to to scan publications for statements that highlight the thoughts and work of the executive leadership such as the President, the Provost, Vice President of Student Affairs, and Academic Deans. Is the commitment featured in the strategic plan? Are there specific objectives to accomplish this vision? Has the institutional allocated internal funds to support this commitment? Have you sought and obtained external funding and support? Do you have offices that provide the needed infrastructure to plan, support, and carry out these plans? Is the community involved in the planning. Is community engagement viewed as part of faculty development? Are faculty and staff recruited based on their interest and skills in community engagement? Are faculty rewarded through on-campus mini grants, or through tenure and promotion for their work in this area? How is this work assessed?

29. Time Line Registration Feb.1 � March 31, 2010 Application Released April 1, 2010 Due September 1, 2010 Registration will be available electronically on Feb 1 until March 31, 2010. On April 1, 2010, schools who have accessed an application will be notified that they are eligible to apply and have access to the application materials. All materials will need to be completed by September 1, 2010. If you are considering applying, it is important that a member of your institution go on-line to the Carnegie site to register prior to March 31, 2010.Registration will be available electronically on Feb 1 until March 31, 2010. On April 1, 2010, schools who have accessed an application will be notified that they are eligible to apply and have access to the application materials. All materials will need to be completed by September 1, 2010. If you are considering applying, it is important that a member of your institution go on-line to the Carnegie site to register prior to March 31, 2010.

30. Lesson Learned Decision to Apply Who decides? What process is used? Who oversees the process? What roles are important to designate? What resources are need to apply? Since every campus has its own unique culture, structure and operational norms there is not one way to approach the decision to apply. It is often initiated by President, chief academic or student affairs staff. However, on some campuses it may be the faculty union or the community service director. Successful applicants in the past of appointed a point person and create an oversight group to develop a process, guide the process, collect the materials and submit the report. Past applicants have stated that the process itself was one that enhanced the campus conversation and awareness about the importance of community engagement to the institutional mission. Many successful applicants have designated specific roles for faculty and students affairs professions to lead and follow through on the process. You may or may not need additional human resources (time, expertise) to apply depending on the your campus. If you already have methods of identifying engagement there may be little need for designating additional resources to this project. If you campus has been doing great work, but has never established a means for capturing this work, it may require additional thought and the creation of internal processes to gather the information that is needed. This is a great opportunity to develop on-going internal systems to chart, evaluate and recognize the research.Since every campus has its own unique culture, structure and operational norms there is not one way to approach the decision to apply. It is often initiated by President, chief academic or student affairs staff. However, on some campuses it may be the faculty union or the community service director. Successful applicants in the past of appointed a point person and create an oversight group to develop a process, guide the process, collect the materials and submit the report. Past applicants have stated that the process itself was one that enhanced the campus conversation and awareness about the importance of community engagement to the institutional mission. Many successful applicants have designated specific roles for faculty and students affairs professions to lead and follow through on the process. You may or may not need additional human resources (time, expertise) to apply depending on the your campus. If you already have methods of identifying engagement there may be little need for designating additional resources to this project. If you campus has been doing great work, but has never established a means for capturing this work, it may require additional thought and the creation of internal processes to gather the information that is needed. This is a great opportunity to develop on-going internal systems to chart, evaluate and recognize the research.

31. Lessons Learned Gathering Data Curricular Identifying faculty-driven, student-affairs driven and student-driven work Courses Syllabi Linkages to the community (local, state, national, global) At some institutions, courses that have community engagement requirements or service learning requirements may have a special identifier in the course booklet, like SL by the number. You will probably need to involve the chief academic officer, deans, and departmental chairs to identify the methods that will be need to cast a wide net on the information in this area. Some institutions have asked faculty to submit their syllabi electronically to create a bank of syllabi that includes community engagement requirements. Make sure to include chief student affairs officers, and directors of centers for service. At some institutions, courses that have community engagement requirements or service learning requirements may have a special identifier in the course booklet, like SL by the number. You will probably need to involve the chief academic officer, deans, and departmental chairs to identify the methods that will be need to cast a wide net on the information in this area. Some institutions have asked faculty to submit their syllabi electronically to create a bank of syllabi that includes community engagement requirements. Make sure to include chief student affairs officers, and directors of centers for service.

32. Lessons Learned Partnerships Participation from the beginning Transparent timeline with community partners Compelling evidence Outreach: application and provision of resources Partnerships: collaborative scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources Involve community leaders from the beginning of this process. Past recipients have cited this as a critical component. Provide compelling evidence about the two approaches to community engagement, curricular and outreach and partnerships. Remember outreach is defined as the application and provision of institutional resources for community use with benefits to both campus and community. Partnerships are defined as collaborative interactions with community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources (research, capacity building, economic development, etc.). Professional Development Centers Program evaluations Collaborative Libraries, Museums Extension courses Co-curricular service Partnerships Scholarship related to outreach and partnerships Involve community leaders from the beginning of this process. Past recipients have cited this as a critical component. Provide compelling evidence about the two approaches to community engagement, curricular and outreach and partnerships. Remember outreach is defined as the application and provision of institutional resources for community use with benefits to both campus and community. Partnerships are defined as collaborative interactions with community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources (research, capacity building, economic development, etc.). Professional Development Centers Program evaluations Collaborative Libraries, Museums Extension courses Co-curricular service Partnerships Scholarship related to outreach and partnerships

33. Resources Successful applications Re-thinking and Re-framing the Carnegie Classification Carnegie Community Engagement Attaining Carnegie Community Engagement Classification- NC State There are several key papers available on the site: Re-thinking and Re-framing the Carnegie Classification Alexander C. McCormick and Chun-Mei Zhao Carnegie Community Engagement- by Amy Driscoll Attaining Carnegie Community Engagement Classification- NC State James J. Zuiches and the NC State Community Engagement Task Forcefrom Change (January/February 2008) If you are a member of Campus Compact you can also access a copy of the Fall 2009 Engaged Times on the Carnegie Elective Classification.There are several key papers available on the site: Re-thinking and Re-framing the Carnegie Classification Alexander C. McCormick and Chun-Mei Zhao Carnegie Community Engagement- by Amy Driscoll Attaining Carnegie Community Engagement Classification- NC State James J. Zuiches and the NC State Community Engagement Task Forcefrom Change (January/February 2008) If you are a member of Campus Compact you can also access a copy of the Fall 2009 Engaged Times on the Carnegie Elective Classification.

34. Completed Applications Campus Compact Website Miami Dade College Mount Wachusett Community College Occidental College Otterbein College San Jose State University University of Louisville University of Wisconsin-Madison Villanova University Weber State University Campus Compact has collaborated directly with the Carnegie Foundation and individual 2008 awardees to post the completed applications on our website. These examples can assist you in viewing the type, quality, and depth of information that was provided by institutions that received the classification. Many schools have found this resource very helpful. Campus Compact has collaborated directly with the Carnegie Foundation and individual 2008 awardees to post the completed applications on our website. These examples can assist you in viewing the type, quality, and depth of information that was provided by institutions that received the classification. Many schools have found this resource very helpful.

35. Critical Questions and Answers Q If we already have the classification do we need to reapply in 2010? A Campuses that have received the classification do not need to reapply in 2010. Q How long is our classification for? A All schools that seek the elective classification must apply in 2015, and subsequently every five years there after. These are just a few common questions that folk have raised about the process.These are just a few common questions that folk have raised about the process.

36. Still have questions? John Saltmarsh- New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) (john.saltmarsh@umb.edu) Tel: 617-287-7743 Amy Driscoll-Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching driscoll@carnegiefoundation.org www.classifications.carnegiefoundation.org� www.compact.org/initiatives/carnegie-community-engagement-classification/ For additional questions about the process or your institution please direct all of your questions directly to John Saltmarsh with NERCHE, or Amy Driscoll with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.For additional questions about the process or your institution please direct all of your questions directly to John Saltmarsh with NERCHE, or Amy Driscoll with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.