2015 = 240
83 = first time
157 = re-classified from 2006 & 2008
2010 = 121 new additions
TOTAL = 361
Out of 4140 Colleges & Universities in the US
What Were the Common Issues in Applications that Did Not Receive the Classification?
If you don't receive the classification, the organization will provide you with general feedback. The website reiterates common issues they found in the 2015 applications:
- They need to give more attention to assessment, particularly from community.
- They don't show enough evidence of ongoing relationships with partners.
- There aren't awards and other clear incentives for faculty engaged in the work.
- Community engagement isn't prevalent in other high-impact initiatives such as first-year programs, learning communities. Also, they aren't connected to other initiatives (diversity, etc.).
Why Are Public, Four-Year Institutions Overrepresented?
Despite there being far more private institutions in the US than public institutions (1699 v 2441), public institutions receive the classification in higher numbers. This might mean that the application process is so intense that private institutions don't have the resources to complete it or the infrastructure to receive the classification. It might also mean that they don't apply in as high numbers or that they aren't as interested in community engagement in general. (It falls outside their mission, perhaps, though I find that dubious.) The website does not clarify any of the numbers by addressing the applicants who do not receive the classification. Community colleges seem to be least represented.
Why Obtain the Classification?
There is no explanation of why one would want the classification other than the fact that it might help institutions reflect on and guide their practices. The website puts it thus, "The classification is not an award. It is an evidence-based documentation of institutional practice to be used in a process of self-assessment and quality improvement."
How Do They Define Community Engagement?
Very Strictly! The website states, "Community engagement describes 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 purpose of community engagement is the partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of 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" (emphasis added).
I'm wondering if the Carnegie Classification reinforces or is at least more conducive to public universities that have a bloated administrative staff.
Who designed the classification requirements?
What institutions or types of institutions were they at?
How do those requirements relate to or reflect their own institutions in terms of what offices existed, what personal existed, etc?
What kinds of infrastructure do these application requirements not only rely on but demand?
I raise these questions because the institution I work at has minimal administrative staff. Much of that work is done by faculty, and course reassignments are minimal as well, which means faculty members provide these services on top of their 4/4 teaching loads. This line of questioning also connects to why so few community colleges obtain the classification.
Next, what and who get left out when we focus on community engagement as working with specific partners? People who don't use or don't work at those organizations are obviously left out. I have serious problems with identifying government agencies and non-profits as communities. The definition of community engagement provided by Carnegie is a huge problem and actually limits the types of relationships that colleges and universities can and should have with people who aren't part of the university.
2020 First-Time Classification
They offer an old version "for planning purposes." The new application will be made available Jan 2018.
It seems the classification lasts 10 years (8 years before reapplication).
2020 Application Timeline
Announcement of the 2020 process
May 1- July 1, 2018
Request for applications (payment of fee and release of application)
April 15, 2019
Applications due/Reviewing begins
Review process completed/campuses notified
2020 classification results announced
There is less than one year to complete the application (May 1 to April 15 at best).
Advice of First-Time Applicants
- Use the guide and start work early.
- Create a team to work on the application (include community partners).
- Asses successes as well as "activities that didn't go as planned." It's unclear whether they actually want you to address these given the limited space of the application, however.
- Each section has word limits. Be judicious in what you provide, and be sure to provide "important and compelling evidence."
Who Decides the Criteria and Reviews Applications?
Big wigs in community engagement
Celestina Castillo, Director, Center for Community Based Learning, Occidental College
Amy Driscoll, Consulting Scholar, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Timothy Eatman, Co-Director, Imagining America, Syracuse University
Thomas Ehrlich, Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University
Matthew Hartley, Professor of Education, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania
Julie Hatcher, Executive Director, Center for Service and Learning, Associate Professor, Philanthropic Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Barbara Holland, Senior Scholar, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Elizabeth Hollander, Senior Fellow, Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University
Emily Janke, Director, Institute for Community & Economic Engagement, University of North Carolina Greensboro
Lori Moog, Director of Service Learning and Community Outreach, Raritan Valley Community College
William Plater, Chancellor's Professor Emeritus, Executive Vice Chancellor Emeritus, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Eugene Rice, Senior Fellow, Association of American Colleges and Universities
John Saltmarsh, Director, New England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Lorilee Sandmann, Professor, Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy, University of Georgia
Chanda Smith Baker, President & CEO, Pillsbury United Communities, Minneapolis, MN
NOTE: The Carnegie site sends you to the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (UMass Boston).
Application Process FAQ: http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1391
Sample Applications: http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1386:community-engagement-classification-resources-sample-applications&catid=914:carnegie-foundation-classification
Adds a Note about NERCHE/Carnegie Relationship
Around 2013 they made an agreement that NERCHE would serve as the classification's administrators.