Focus of Assessment: Institutions of Higher Education
The Carnegie Community Engagement Elective Classification is an elective classification that involves data collection and documentation of important aspects of institutional mission, identity, and
commitments related to community-campus engagement. The use of evidence-based documentation of institutional practice for self-assessment and quality improvement is modeled after accreditation
processes of self-study. The documentation is reviewed by a National Review Panel to determine whether the institution qualifies for recognition by the Carnegie Foundation as a community engaged institution. The classification framework represents best practices in the field and encourages continuous improvement through re-classification on a ten year cycle.
For the purposes of the classification, community engagement is defined as:
the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial creation and exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity. The purpose of community
engagement is the partnership (of knowledge and resources) between colleges and universities and the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good. The Carnegie Classification has emerged as the gold standard in institutional self-assessment
predominantly due to the value obtaining the classification holds for the institution; however, it is by no means the only approach available in this category. Several tools have been developed that can be used to evaluate the state of an institution’s commitment to community engagement. These include tools designed to cross all elements of the institution (e.g., Furco, 1999; Gelmon, Seifer, Kauper-Brown, & Mikkelsen, 2005; Janke et al., 2017; ) and tools focused particularly on academic departments (e.g., Battistoni, Gelmon, Saltmarsh, Wegin, & Zlotkowski, 2003; Kecskes, 2008, 2013). These tools are particularly useful for institutions that have 3-5 years to prepare for a Carnegie Community Engagement Classification review as they can help identify where resources and activity should be focused.
As a framework that requires extensive analysis of many domains and forms of institutional activity the Carnegie classification process is best suited to help a campus understand the degree to which it has developed practices, policies, and programs that support substantive community engagement efforts (Swearer Center, 2018b). Aggregate data has also been used to develop insights into how community engagement is practiced across institutions and to identify best practices. The tool itself is not well suited to evaluate the strength of particular projects, although the recent addition of a survey that is sent to community partners who are part of the institution’s selected partnerships to feature will provide their perspectives on “how the campus … has enacted reciprocity, mutual respect, shared authority, and co-creation of goals and outcomes.”
Development of the approach
Developed under the leadership of Amy Driscoll, the classification was first used in 2006 as part of a restructuring of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Administration of the classification was transferred to the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) housed at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. The Swearer Center at Brown University became the administrative and research host institution for the Classification in January 2017.
Prior to classification of 107 institutions in 2006 as the inaugural cohort of “community-engaged” universities and colleges, a thorough process was implemented to develop the framework guided by three principles (Driscoll, 2008, p. 39):
1. Respect the diversity of institutions and their approaches to community engagement; 2. Engage institutions in a process of inquiry, reflection, and self-assessment; and
3. Honor institutions’ achievements while promoting the ongoing development of their programs The framework was developed through consultation with national leaders and informed by scholarly work and best practices in community engagement. The initial framework was tested and refined through a pilot study with 14 institutions known for high levels of engagement with their communities (Driscoll, 2008). The framework is “extensive and substantive, focused on significant qualities, activities and institutional provisions that ensure an institutional approach to community engagement” (Zuiches, 2008).
Every five years, changes are made to the documentation framework. These revisions are incorporated into the existing framework and reflect changes in the community engagement field and/or gaps identified in the framework. For each cycle the revision process is refined, formalized, and includes an increasingly diverse set of contributing mechanisms. For the 2015 round questions about the relationship of community engagement to diversity and inclusion were added; and the 2020 framework includes questions about co-curricular engagement for the first time. Some changes are the result of comments provided by campuses as part of the application, in response to a specific prompt inviting feedback on the process. Ongoing refinements will be made through an increasingly transparent process that involves listening sessions, solicitation of input, and an open online forum (Swearer Center, 2018a).
How the approach works
The first-time and re-classification frameworks, which outline questions that are asked in the formal application process, can be accessed by visiting the Swearer Center’s website for its College & University Engagement Initiative.
The application process provides a framework for institutions to conduct a comprehensive self-study that documents institutional support for community engagement efforts as well as evidence impact from these efforts. After an opening section that solicits information on campus and community context, the framework divides evidence collection into two primary categories: (1) foundational indicators, (2) categories of community engagement, which is further subdivided into (a) curricular engagement, (b) co-curricular engagement, (c) professional activity and scholarship, (d) community engagement and other institutional initiatives, and (e) outreach and partnerships. A selection of questions from the 2020
first-time framework is included here: