BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS

WITH COLLEGE CAMPUSES:COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES

A MONOGRAPH

by Sally Leiderman, Andrew Furco,Jennifer Zapf and Megan Goss

A Publication of the Consortium for the Advancement of Private Higher Education’s Engaging Communities and Campuses

Grant Program

-2-

The Council ofIndependent Colleges

(CIC), an association ofmore than 500 colleges anduniversities, has over tenyears of experience in pro-moting partnerships amonginstitutions of higher edu-cation and communityorganizations. Through the

generous support of TheAtlantic Philanthropies, CIC’s

grantmaking unit, the Consor-tium for the Advancement of

Private Higher Education(CAPHE), administered the

Engaging Communities and Campusesgrant program. This program provided awards

up to $80,000 each to thirteen private colleges anduniversities to develop campus-wide initiatives thatprepare students for a lifetime of contributions to society (Please see Appendix A for a complete list ofgrant recipients). The program focuses on assistingindependent colleges and universities and their com-munity organizational partners to extend and deepentheir commitments to both student learning and com-munity interests through the development of communi-ty/campus collaborations that center on community-focused experiential learning opportunities for students.The program supports building the organizationalcapacity of campuses in one or more of four key areas—faculty skills and knowledge, assisting facultymembers in developing new experiential learningknowledge and skills; institutional infrastructure, estab-lishing infrastructure to work with community organi-zations; academic culture, creating a campus culture supportiveof faculty members’ work with experientiallearning pedagogies; and partner relationships, strength-ening institutional partnerships with community organizations.

The evaluation of the Engaging Communities andCampuses program has included interviews with differ-ent stakeholder groups involved in the community/campus partnership. In September 2002, during a two-day summit, a series of focus group interviews were heldwith 19 of the community leaders involved in partner-ships with the thirteen colleges and universities. Thesummit sought to capture community participants’ per-spectives regarding their partnership work with highereducation. Through a series of focused discussions andsmall group activities, the community leaders wereasked a series of questions designed to investigate theirperspectives on what it takes to develop successful andeffective campus/community partnerships. This mono-graph presents the findings from this investigation.

Although a number of the issues discussed during the summit were drawn from the community leaders’experiences with the Engaging Communities andCampuses program, many of the perceptions presentedhere extend beyond those formed through the Engaginggrant program.

THE SUMMIT’S TWIN GOALS WERE TO:■ bring community perspectives into clearer focus by

documenting the perspectives, experiences, andvoices of experienced community partners regardingthe creation and maintenance of partnershipsbetween community organizations and institutions ofhigher education; and

■ understand better those perspectives as a way to gaininsight into common challenges and opportunitiesthat ultimately lead to more successful and effectivepartnerships between institutions of higher educa-tion and community organizations.

-3-

Formal collaborations and partnerships betweencommunity organizations and their local institu-

tions of higher education increased substantially duringthe 1990s. The U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development reports that a growing number ofhigher education institutions in the United States aremaking significant contributions to nearby neighbor-hoods by developing partnerships with local communi-ty-based agencies and organizations (Vidal, Nye,Walker, Manjarrez, Romanik, Corvington, Ferryman,Freiberg, and Kim, 2003). The number of colleges anduniversities that are members of Campus Compact, anorganization of college and uni-versity presidents seeking toadvance their institution’s com-munity engagement, has grownfrom a little over 400 members in1995 to 880 members today(Campus Compact, 2003). Inaddition, many community-basedorganizations are seeking outopportunities to collaborate with other communityinstitutions, including local institutions of higher education (Maurrasse, 2001).

Several factors contribute to current growing interestin community and campus collaboration and partner-ship. As public resources dwindle and social needs pro-liferate, community-based organizations are increasinglylooking for institutional partners with which to collab-orate to address complex social issues. At the sametime, many institutions of higher education are renew-ing their emphases on the civic purposes of higher edu-cation and consequently, have been expanding theirconnections to the local community of which they area part. In addition, more foundations and other grantsorganizations are requiring multi-agency partnershipsand collaborations as a condition for awarding grants.Such grant making entities see community partnershipsas essential to the development of comprehensiveapproaches for achieving community goals. Thesetrends, in particular, have encouraged the formation ofpartnerships between community organizations andtheir local institutions of higher education.1

An emerging body of research suggests that commu-nities that want to improve the quality of life of theirresidents potentially have much to gain from partner-ships with institutions of higher education (Harkavy,1999; Zlotkowski, 1999; Holland and Gelmon, 1998;Walskok, 1995). Local colleges and universities canprovide expertise, volunteer resources, clout with cer-tain constituencies, and amenities that are not readilyavailable from other institutions in the community. Forexample, colleges and universities often have access tothe most current research on many of the issues thataffect community well being. In addition, institutions

of higher education can serve as pow-erful allies and advocates on impor-tant community issues, and they canbe “bridge” institutions to help sus-tain long-term community buildingefforts past inevitable changes in, forexample, political leadership or foun-dation support.

In turn, community venues offer students, faculty,staff, and administrators of higher education institu-tions opportunities to apply learning to “real world” sit-uations, to develop a sophisticated understanding ofcommunity goals, processes, and current issues, and togrow as individuals through civic, ethical, political,philanthropic, and other activities. Together, through agenuine, collaborative partnership, community organi-zations and institutions of higher education can buildcommunities that are good and healthy places to live.

Analysis of the literature on community/campuspartnerships reveals that the elements of effective col-laboration are emphasized within community buildingand higher education literature, with scant attentionpaid to community voices and perspectives on theseissues (Giles and Cruz, 2000). This is particularly truefor literature representing multiple community voicesand literature that highlights the costs as well as thebenefits to community agencies and residents of partici-pation in community/campus partnerships.

While relatively little has been written about com-munity/campus partnership from a community perspec-tive, there is substantial literature on the components

I. BACKGROUND

AND CONTEXT

As public resources dwindle and social needs proliferate,

community-based organizations areincreasingly looking for institutionalpartners with which to collaborate to address complex social issues.

-4-

of effective collaboration within communities andacross community spheres (such as neighborhoods andcommunity institutions).2 It is reasonable to assumethese components apply to the subset of communitypartnerships that are formed with higher educationinstitutions, as well as other kinds of partnerships. Theliterature suggests core elements that include:

■ Analyses and strategies that focus on communityassets and strengths (rather than focusing solely, orprimarily, on deficits and needs);

■ Comprehensive strategies that cut across systems,sectors, issues, and disciplines;

■ Acknowledgement of the roles that privilege, insti-tutional and structural racism, and power differen-tials play in creating and maintaining differentialcommunity conditions;3

■ High quality and effectivecollaboration; and

■ Sustained, long-term action.

From the higher educationperspective, the literature hasfocused on detailing effectiveprogrammatic features of variouscommunity engagementapproaches such as service-learning, experiential educa-tion, internships, community-based research, facultyprofessional service and outreach, and student volun-teerism (Stoecker, 2002; Zlotkowski, 1999; Ward,1998). More recently, the literature has explored thecomponents necessary to institutionalizecommunity/campus engagement within an institutionof higher education (Furco, 2002; Vidal et al., 2002;Gray, Ondaaje, Fricker, Geschwind, 2000; Robinson,2000; Holland, 1999).4

Although the components for institutionalizingcommunity engagement initiatives in higher educationhave been identified and labeled differently by variousresearchers, collectively the components can be sub-sumed within the following four categories developedfor the Engaging program:5

■ Institutional infrastructure (including leadership,structure, practices, organization, connections, sta-tus, and services);

■ Academic culture (including access, status, funding,support, mission, incentives, and connections);

■ Faculty knowledge and skills (including studentexperiences, assessment, teaching practices, connec-tions, and activities); and

■ Partner relationships (including knowledge, organi-zation, structures, connections, leadership, androles).

In light of this framework, the EngagingCommunities and Campuses program included arequirement for active participation by communitypartners, including the formation of an active advisoryboard with community representation, and a focus onmeeting community as well as campus goals. CAPHEalso established two strands of evaluation, one focusingon elements and processes that can spread an engage-ment culture through an institution of higher educa-tion (and thus, increase the likelihood of improved stu-dent academic and civic learning outcomes) and one

focused on community perspectivesand benefits from engagement.6 Thisdesign provided an opportunity tolook a bit more deeply at the detailsof partnership than is typically thecase, and particularly, to share theinsights and lessons from often highlyexperienced community partners.

METHODData were collected from 19 leaders within communityorganizations partnering with Engaging Communitiesand Campuses program grantee institutions. Theseleaders, referred to as community partners, participatedin a two-day summit at which they were asked to dis-cuss their partnership experiences, to provide insightsabout the challenges of partnering with institutions ofhigher education, and to offer recommendations forimplementing successful community/campus partner-ships. The summit provided an opportunity to analyzethe cumulative knowledge of community leaders, basedon their experiences working with higher educationinstitutions. The summit was designed as an opportuni-ty for them to talk openly with each other and with theevaluators of the Engaging program.7 An advisory groupof seven community leaders worked with the evaluatorsto develop the topics to be discussed and formatsthrough which the discussions were to occur at thesummit. Members of the advisory group also led severalactivities during the summit and helped open anddeepen conversations.

The program focuses on assistingindependent colleges and universitiesand their community organizational

partners to extend and deepen theircommitments to both student

learning and community interests.

-5-

Research questionsAll of the overarching questions, which were developedby the advisory group and were explored during summitfocus groups and working sessions, address issues per-taining to community voices and community perspec-tives. The questions are:

■ What is a good partnership, from your perspective?In contrast, what is a bad partnership? What are spo-ken and unspoken issues that have affected yourpartnership?8

■ What are you doing within your own partnershipthat other similar initiatives might get excitedabout?

■ From your perspective, what are the benefits andcosts of participating in these kinds of partnerships?

■ What do you want campuses to know based on yourexperiences in these kinds ofpartnerships?

■ What recommendations doyou have for the broader field?

Discussions were capturedthrough extensive notes and easelchart summaries. This information was organized andanalyzed by the research team. Emerging themes andrecommendations were identified and included in adraft of this monograph. The draft was shared withcommunity partners to assure the report’s accuracy;their comments helped shape the final version of thisreport.

SampleCommunity partners were invited from each of thethirteen Engaging Communities and Campuses collegesand universities. The partners were nominated by cam-pus-based project directors at each site. Partners wereselected based on the depth of their expertise of com-munity processes and interests and their experiencewith community/campus partnerships. The final groupof 19 represented eleven of the thirteen Engaging sites(the partners from Loyola University New Orleanscould not attend at the last minute because of localweather conditions; the Bates partnership was unableto participate due to time considerations).

The summit participants were all active in commu-nity/campus partnership activities. In addition, many

were also very experienced with community/campuspartnering outside this particular grant program.Collectively, their work centered on a variety of issuesor areas of community improvement including earlychildhood education and care, K-12 education, eco-nomic development, hunger and homelessness, compre-hensive community building, arts and cultural activi-ties, and resident leadership and empowerment. Thegroup was diverse with respect to race and ethnicity,gender, years of experience, education, and geography.

Data AnalysisThe notes collected by the researchers during the vari-ous focus groups and small group discussions held at thesummit were analyzed over a period of several weeksthrough inductive, qualitative, content, and subtextanalyses that searched for common themes. For eachresearch question, the researchers developed a relation-

al scheme that grouped participantresponses into clusters according tothemes. Each cluster of responses wascategorized into themes usingdescriptive labels. Whenever evi-dent, subthemes (or categories) wereidentified and labeled. The emergentthemes and subthemes identified

form the structure of this monograph.

CaveatsTwo caveats regarding the sample should be noted.First, as noted above, community partners were askedto speak from their organizational perspectives. Whilethey work on behalf of community residents, and manylive in the areas they serve, they do not purport to rep-resent the views of community residents. Thus, thesefindings represent the views of community organiza-tions, not community residents per se. Second, partici-pants are a convenience sample, not selected from adefined universe with known probability. The findingsfrom this analysis are qualitative and not generalizablein a statistical sense, and should be interpreted in thatfashion. At the same time, there was a great deal ofconvergence in the perspectives offered (and some differences) suggesting findings may have broad applicability. Indeed, the majority of the findings from this investigation corroborate with the generalperspectives offered in the few existing treatises thathave explored community perspectives in community/campus partnerships (see Cone and Payne, 2002; Gilesand Cruz, 2000).

...a two-day summit...with 19 of the community leaders...sought to capture community participants’

perspectives regarding their partner-ship work with higher education.

-6-

II. EMERGING

THEMES

These emerging themes regarding community per-spectives in community/campus partnerships reflect

a broad categorization of issues that were raised mostoften and most fervently during the summit. Theremainder of this monograph discusses the nature ofeach of these themes and presents some of the quotesand comments that characterize each theme. Theemerging themes were drawn from the research ques-tions that focused on the following topics:

■ Core elements of effective partnerships;

■ Benefits and costs of participation;

■ Power, parity, and perceptions ofexploitation; and

■ Recommendations for practiceand policy.

The emerging themes and sub-themes for each of these researchareas are discussed.

CORE ELEMENTS OF

EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS

For community partners, a good community/campus partnership is characterized by carefulpreparation, excellent implementation, andmeticulous follow-through.

The community partners revealed that they havethought a great deal about what constitutes a goodpartnership or engagement activity with an institutionof higher education. Many have participated in part-nership activities over the years, often with several dif-ferent higher education institutions. Several are offeredmore such opportunities each year than their organiza-tion can absorb. Overall, for the community partners,good partnerships are ones that are effective in meetingshort-term goals, contribute to long-term ones, developrelationships with higher education institutions withpromise of benefits beyond the results of a givenengagement activity, and are worth repeating.

One of the chief insights from the summit was thatgood community/campus partnerships are created daily

through the routine interactions and cumulative out-comes of their processes and activities. They are inten-tional, with a focus not just on design and broad con-cept, but on careful preparation every time, excellentimplementation, and meticulous follow-through. Inaddition, it appears that community partners value fre-quent and candid communication not just about sched-ules, expectations, policies, and accomplishments, butalso about issues of power, privilege, race, and class asthey play out in the partnership, as well as in interac-tions between students and community residents. Theevidence from this summit suggests that even though a

partnership is long-standing, it isnot always robust. Our conclusionis that in this work, the devil reallyis in the details and even very long-standing relationships should notbe taken for granted.

ComponentsCommunity partners were largely in consensus aboutthe essential elements of an effective partnership that isworth sustaining. Elements they mentioned cluster intoseven major categories, as noted below:

■ A set of mutually determined goals and processes, including processes to select and train people whowill come into contact with a community organiza-tion or community residents. The community part-ners expressed the need to have a say over the selec-tion of the college and university students and facul-ty who come to work with them. They wish to beinvolved in the development of the projects earlyon, when the primary goals and expectations of thecommunity engagement work are being developed.

■ Shared vision, resources, rewards, and risks. Thecommunity partners expressed a strong desire not tobe considered solely as recipients of services orresources, but rather as equal partners who also haveresources to share. In addition, the community part-ners would like to have more open discussions of theresources available for a particular engagement. Theyalso wish they would be able to talk more freelyabout the potential risks to their organizations andconstituents, as well as potential rewards, as a pre-

The community partners revealed thatthey have thought a great deal aboutwhat constitutes a good partnership

or engagement activity with an institution of higher education.

-7-

cursor to decisions about how resources, rewards, andrisks will be allocated.

■ The members of the partnerships have a sharedvision that is built on genuine excitement and pas-sion for the issues at hand. Community partnersprefer working with higher education institutionswhen the community/campus partnership is not arti-ficial or forced. Artificial or forced partnershipssometimes occur when higher education institutionsseek to partner with the community primarily to ful-fill a requirement for a grant or solely for symbolicpurposes. For a community/campus partnership to besuccessful, its focus and activities must be importantand relevant to all partners.

■ Strategies focused on issues as they play out in aparticular location, based on deep understanding ofa community’s interests, assets,needs, and opportunities. Goodcommunity/ campus partner-ships meet specific communitygoals. For the community part-ners, this is most likely to hap-pen when campus partners havea comprehensive understandingof the local context and manifestation of the issuesthat students are being asked to address (such aspoverty, hunger, school reform and achievementissues, resident leadership and economic develop-ment, or arts development).

■ A variety of roles and responsibilities based oneach partner’s particular capacities and resources.Based on the summit participants’ responses, itappears that a community partner’s capacity to par-ticipate fully in an engagement activity depends onmany conditions, including staff capacity to super-vise the work and mentor students, resources to payfor and manage additional staff if necessary, otherpriorities for the use of time and resources, space andtransportation constraints, and fit between an orga-nization’s responsibilities and the capacities andskills of campus partners to help meet them. Theyalso expressed that they sometimes feel that campuspartners do not fully understand how stretchedresources are for many community organizations, andthus, plan activities that are well meaning but bur-densome. For these community partners, good com-munity/campus partnerships take the individualcapacities and resources of community-based organi-zations into account, sharing roles and responsibili-ties based on each partner’s ability to do them well.

■ Peer relationships among faculty (and other cam-pus partners) and management and staff of partnerorganizations in the community. The communitypartners felt strongly that their expertise and experi-ence need to be acknowledged and utilized in thecommunity/ campus partnership. Community part-ners acknowledged their appreciation for the specialexpertise that campus partners may bring to thetable—research skills and up-to-date research knowl-edge, an interest in publicizing community workthrough peer reviewed publications, theoretical con-text, and applied experience. However, they expectcampus partners to understand and value their orga-nization’s expertise at all staff levels. They also hopethat campus partners acknowledge the academic, aswell as the experiential credentials of their commu-nity partners, since many directors of community

institutions hold advanced degreesand are highly trained. The com-munity members suggested moreeffective and longstanding commu-nity/campus partnerships are likelyto develop when there is parityamong the partnership members.

■ Benefits (short- or long-term) to each partner sufficient to justify the costs, level of effort, andpotential risks of participation. According to thesummit participants, there are always costs, and risks,to community organizations when they partner withothers, since the partnership includes putting theirreputations on the line and making choices aboutwhere to invest scarce resources. Therefore, commu-nity partners weigh a number of costs against bene-fits in deciding whether to enter into, or maintain, apartnership with any given higher education institu-tion. Their decision processes, potential benefits,and costs are described more fully in the next sectionof this report.

■ A system of accountability that covers responsibilityfor carrying out jointly determined plans, ensuringthat quality work is produced, and benefits accrue tocommunities and campuses. The community mem-bers felt it is important to hold each level of partner-ship—organization and campus administration, linestaff and faculty, and students—accountable for qualitywork. In addition, they saw evaluation and continuousimprovement as important. As they revealed, theseefforts arm them with data that they can use to garnermore internal and external support for their work aswell as identify ways to improve the partnership.

The community partners felt strongly that their expertise and

experience need to be acknowledgedand utilized in the community/

campus partnership.

-8-

The community partners also described some of thespecific activities or processes that increase the likeli-hood that these components will be realized in commu-nity/campus partnerships. Elements of a Good Partnership(see sidebar pg. 9) lists some of the specific activitiesand processes of a good community/campus engage-ment partnership mentioned by the community part-ners.

Areas of disagreementWhile community partners were generally in agreementon the importance of these core elements, they differedin two important ways as to how they could or shouldbe implemented. The first difference was in their opin-ions about whether higher education communityengagement activities should be required or voluntary.Some partners expressed strong beliefs that higher edu-cation institutions shouldrequire faculty or students toengage with the communitiesnear their campus. They believeengagement activities, whendone well, provide a necessarypart of the education of futurecitizens and potential communi-ty leaders. Some also believe that higher educationinstitutions have a responsibility to be active citizens oftheir local communities, both through the actions ofindividual faculty members, staff, and administration,and as an institution through policy and by othermeans.

While not disagreeing with these ideas, other com-munity leaders shared that they believe that engage-ment activities—particularly in the form of service-learning, community-based research or communityservice—should be voluntary, and that mandating themis counter-productive. In their experiences, mandatingengagement activities devalues them and can lead towork done in a perfunctory manner. Because there arereal costs to community organizations for engaging withcampuses, they do not place organizational priority oncreating what they call “make-work” for students whojust want to get their hours in.

The community partners stated that they view stu-dent work quality as a shared responsibility of theirown organization, faculty members, campus administra-tion, and the students. According to the summit partic-ipants, if work is not done well, community partnerswill sometimes place responsibility with faculty mem-

bers and administrators even more than with students,for failing to establish norms and a context that moti-vates and prepares students to sufficiently recognize thegreater context into which their particular assignmentfalls. Partners who have experienced many of these sit-uations appear to support voluntary, but not mandatory,community engagement in higher education.

The summit participants also differed about theirappropriate roles as community partners in relation tobuilding faculty interest and capacity, and makingengagement activities meaningful for students. Some ofthe partners believe it is a community partner’s role tocreate projects that will meet community needs, givestudents context and specific training, and ensure thatthe work meets high standards. They do not expect thecampus to be able to do this as well as a communitypartner. The partners operating in this mode often

work from their own community ororganizational strategic or master planand fit various engagement opportuni-ties into the plan. Such a plan may ormay not have been developed withany particular campus partnership inmind.

Other community partners specifically rejected thisassumption. Though they are interested in helping toeducate students, and helping administrators and facul-ty understand issues important to communities withwhich they work, these community partners believethat campus partners who have not taken time to learnabout their local neighborhoods will ultimately not beable to organize and sustain quality engagementprocesses or useful joint work.

WEIGHING BENEFITS AND COSTS

The community partners asserted that thereare a number of risks in working with institu-tions of higher education, and therefore, theycarefully weigh the ratio of benefits to risksand costs in deciding to enter into, or continuein, a community/campus partnership.

In choosing to engage with campuses, the communi-ty partners revealed that they weighed the perceivedbenefits and costs carefully, along with several mediat-ing factors. Potential benefits and costs, as described bythe summit participants, are described more fully below.

While community partners were generally in agreement on the

importance of these core elements,they differed in two important waysas to how they could or should be

implemented.

-9-

Mediating factors important to a community partner’sdecision about whether or not to engage and remain ina partnership include:

■ The presence of sufficient, qualified staff at a cam-pus center. Whether or not the campus has anoffice or unit that coordinates community engage-ment work (a service-learning center, internshipoffice, or community outreach center for example),the community partners consider the degree towhich the institution has allocated sufficient andappropriate staff to handle the scope and scale ofthe partnership work. Specifically, community part-ners look for the presence of enough staff and staffhours to handle the various tasks, enough access andclout within the campus to get things done, an abili-ty to bring the right people to the table, and for staffand leaders with excellent community relationships.

■ The level of sustained administrative interest andvisible leadership supporting community engage-ment. The community partners expressed that theywant to be part of campus activities that have highvisibility and that they also want to be consideredimportant to the overall mission of the campus.Summit participants explained that community part-ners often view the college or university leadership’sattitude toward community engagement activities asreflective of the institution’s actual commitment.Community partners expect high-level campusadministrators to demonstrate that they valueengagement work by incorporating it into institu-tional culture and infrastructure. According to thesummit participants, community partners view thecollege or university leadership’s attitudes towardcommunity engagement work as a marker of howimportant the community engagement work really is to the institution. Community partners expecthigh-level campus administrators to show that theyvalue engagement work through its incorporationinto overall academic culture and institutional infrastructure.

■ An assessment of the quality of prior experienceswith campus partnerships generally, and with agiven higher education institution and particularfaculty. A number of the summit participants’ com-ments suggest that understanding the history oftown/gown relationships between the campus andvarious agencies in a community helps define thecontext in which new efforts must be planned,implemented, and assessed. If community membershave had previous positive experiences with a facul-

ELEMENTS OF A GOOD PARTNERSHIP:

Basic and Required Elements of a Good Partnership(Success requires that these be met sufficiently, but more of them does not necessarily improve results. Representsthe minimum for success).

■ Faculty and student participation in engagement activities.

■ An understanding of each partner’s assets and capacities to participate.

■ Shared decision making and resource allocation.

■ Realistic expectations.

■ Knowledge of community needs—understanding of howtheoretical and macro issues (like homelessness and K-12schooling) play out locally.

■ Diverse representation and participation from colleges,including faculty, students, administration, and staff.

■ An understanding of student’s capacities.

■ An understanding of different ways to work in communities.

■ Adherence to basic standards for planning, using another’s resources, and interacting with another’s and base of legitimacy.

Enables the Enhancement of Partnerships (The more these are practiced the more likely engagement is to produce meaningful results, be sustained, and become institutionalized over time. These factors motivate strongerpartnership and engagement).

■ Recognition that communities and campuses each havemultiple players and perspectives (partners are not monolithic).

■ Explicit attention to faculty and student development and preparation.

■ Existence of people in communities who can network and make connections.

■ Attention to building the capacity of all partner organizations.

■ Specific opportunities for community partners (staff and residents) to make use of campus resources, such as attending classes, accessing research, and obtainingadvanced degrees, not just use of the gym.

■ Stated outcomes with an evaluation to determine ifdesired goals are met.

■ Attention to the institutionalization of a college’s partnership in the community.

The list, generated by the community partners, is consistent with the elements of sound collaboration noted in other community collaboration initiatives (Chaskin, 2001;Leiderman, 2001). Since this list is fairly well known amongpractitioners and researchers who work on community self-determination and improvement, it was particularly frustrating to community partners that its elements are not better observed in collaborations between communityorganizations and higher educational institutions.

-10-

ty member, campus department, or program, or aparticular institution of higher education, they aremore likely to trust plans that are not fully articulat-ed, for example, or to be willing to help students andfaculty engage with residents and other organizationswithin their own network.

■ Whether or not partners have discussed and begunto work through issues of trust and accountability.Consistent with the comments above, the communi-ty partners discussed how they consider the variousindividuals involved in a partnership. Communitypartners explained that they are more likely to re-engage with partners that operate from a base ofexpertise and a position of respect for a community’sresidents, organizations, and the particular organiza-tional staff and constituencies with whom theyinteract most directly (see next section of thisreport). They seek to develop rela-tionships that are built on trust,mutual goals, responsibility, andaccountability.

■ Clear expectations about whowill prepare students and facultyfor engagement activities. Thecommunity partners revealed thatthey are sometimes unclear aboutwhy students are being asked toparticipate at their site, what thefaculty member hopes studentswill get from the experience, orwhat schedule the students will keep. The communi-ty members also discussed how they sometimes haveno say as to which students get placed at their site,or are asked to take on students who do not have theproper skills or training to assume designated respon-sibilities at the agency.

In the context of these mediating factors, it appearsthat community partners consider four main questionsas they weigh the benefits and costs of their organiza-tion’s participation in community/campus partnerships:

■ How well does this engagement activity align withmy broad goals for partnering with campuses?

■ To what extent will this engagement activity con-tribute to achieving my organization’s mission, orimproving outcomes for the constituencies to whomour organization holds itself accountable?

■ What is the risk or potential harm of engagementactivity in terms of my organization’s credibility,capability to produce quality services and products,

and ability maintain respectful and trusting relation-ships with community residents; and

■ What are the actual and opportunity costs of partici-pation—in terms of time, money, redirected staffresources or foregone relationships, activities, andopportunities?

Each of these questions is addressed in the followingsubsections. Each subsection presents a list of the keyfindings that emerged from the summit.

Community partners’ goals for engagement with campusesOverall, the community partners expressed a deepinterest in the civic purposes of higher education. Infact, most summit participants said their primary goalfor engaging with campuses through service-learning,

community based research, andother student-focused partner-ships is to play a role in develop-ing a next generation of citizenswho understand and can promoteneeded change. Though manysaid that they justify their organi-zation’s involvement in terms ofthe hours, services, and productsthat students provide, this is notthe primary reason for gettinginvolved or remaining involvedover time. The partners were

clear to say that if the partnerships are not aimed at thegoal of civic education, then the time commitment,actual staff costs, and organizational demands placed onthem would be less justifiable.

The partners also considered other goals for campusengagement, including:

■ Increasing the number of community residents whoattend the partner university or college. One com-munity partner suggested that every engagementeffort be assessed on the extent to which this goal isachieved, notwithstanding its other goals;

■ Raising the expectations and exposure of neighbor-hood residents more generally to the idea that theycan attend and succeed in college. This applies espe-cially to youth, but it also applies to older communi-ty residents;

■ Increasing community capacity to address a particu-lar issue at the systemic or structural level, particu-

If community members have had previous positive experiences

with a faculty member, campusdepartment, or program, or a particular institution of higher

education, they are more likely...to be willing to help students and

faculty engage with residents and other organizations within their

own network.

-11-

larly issues such as K-12 education, economic devel-opment, housing and homelessness, small businessdevelopment, or the viability of arts venues and pro-grams. These issues are often approached in frag-mented ways without broad community collabora-tion and partnership; and,

■ As would be expected, achieving outcomes that con-tribute to an organization’s ability to meet its mis-sion, implement its programs, and deliver productsand services.

Note that these goals are generally more profoundand broader than the specific outcomes against whichcommunity/campus partnerships are usually assessed(such as the completion of a certain number of servicehours). Assessment of success, therefore, would includeat least a review of the quality of services performed(like tutoring) and, where relevant, materials produced(such as lesson plans, resource guides, or research prod-uct for community use), some indication of changes instudents’ civic values, attitudes, skills or behaviors, anda sense of the contribution of their work to the broadersocial goals to which community partners, or communi-ty residents, hold themselves accountable. While it istypically not feasible to measure every engagementactivity at this level of depth, community partnersbelieve that there ought to be some accountability forcumulative progress within a partnership, a neighbor-hood, or a sustained issue alliance among communityand campus collaborators.

Types of benefitsConsistent with these goals, one or more partnersreported each of the following benefits from a currentor former community/campus partnership. Not all ofthese benefits are typical, though each is possible,according to community partners. Benefits notedinclude:

■ Growth in college student understanding and poten-tial for informed citizenship;

■ Exposure of young residents to the possibility ofhigher education (through exposure to students andcampuses);

■ Access to the expertise of faculty members;

■ Access to people (administrators, staff, faculty) whocan serve on boards of community organizations orparticipate meaningfully on community planning,

advocacy and service coalitions, task forces, and col-laborations;

■ Access to other campus resources including libraries,gymnasia, and other intellectual and recreationalfacilities;

■ Access to programs that bring community youthonto campus for residential and non-residential skillbuilding or leadership development;

■ Expansion of community partners’ own approachesto an issue through others’ ways of looking at thesame things;

■ Opportunities to learn new skills and tools;

■ Expanded resource base;

■ Grant opportunities;

■ More legitimacy, stature, or credibility for a commu-nity effort by virtue of its affiliation with an institu-tion of higher education; and

■ Mission advancement, including specifically:

◆ Changes to extant public systems;

◆ Increased ability to perform tasks that anorganization otherwise would not have the labor to do through student and campus volunteerism;

◆ The ability to meet constituency requests to add or enrich some programs and services;

◆ Personnel cost savings (though many com-munity partners noted that volunteersrequire additional personnel for proper supervision);

◆ More effective and visible advocacy for com-munity driven efforts to improve outcomes (such as educational attainment, economic development, violence prevention, and others);

◆ Evaluation or assessment opportunities, capacities, and products; and

◆ Other specific products (for example, resource guides or data analyses that students produce).

Types of costs and risksWithout denying the many benefits of this work, onecommunity partner summed up the feelings of severalby saying, “Community agencies are at risk whenever

(Cont’d on page 12)

-12-

they devote the time to doing community engagementwork.” This partner was referring specifically to theopportunity cost of taking time to do communityengagement work with one partner, at the risk of losingother partners or opportunities, given very scarce orga-nizational resources of staff and time.

However, community partners also point out thatthese risks come from a sense that community/campuspartnerships usually involve a community partner lend-ing its credibility within a community to the campus—in a sense, certifying that the campus is a worthwhileand trustworthy ally and resource. Communities areoften skeptical on this point, as many partner organiza-tions move on when their interests and needs turn toother issues or don’t sustain work until the promisedgoal is achieved (for example, until performance in K-12 improves). So the community partner, who cannotcontrol the actions of the campus partner, takes a riskby lending its name to a joint effort.

In addition, community organizations with legitima-cy among their constituents have often worked hard fora long time to gain it. So the risk of partnership to theorganization—in terms of its own credibility and abilityto work in a community—may be much greater thancampus partners perceive.

The partners also considered other, more direct coststo their organizations. They include:

◆ The time it takes to create work, supervise stu-dent volunteers, or participate in research;

◆ The opportunity cost of not doing funded orbillable work using the same staff resources;

◆ Time lost to work with other constituencies (a board, donor base, or other partners);

◆ Loss of organizational identity and privacy, insome instances; and

◆ The “irritation” factor when organizational staffmembers are not treated as experts and peers bycampus partners and students, or when respectis not demonstrated in the way things areplanned and decisions are made. The partnersspoke of having to “mop up the organizationaldamage” from these experiences.

One major finding of the summit is the frequencywith which the community partners found that the

EXAMPLES FROM PRACTICE:

■ Many higher education institutions engage primarilywith the directors of community organizations (theexecutive director of a multi-service agency, a schoolsuperintendent, or principal). In fact, successful part-nerships require the buy-in and expertise of depart-mental supervisors and line people who will workdirectly with students and community residents.Partnerships that take this into account, and build insufficient time and resources to engage frontline staffand their supervisors, demonstrate a much greaterunderstanding of how community organizations workand are more likely to be effective.

■ Community partners underscore the need to avoid jargon in community/campus partnerships, whether itis disciplinary, pedagogical, issue, or agency-specific.They note that jargon allows people to be theoreticalrather than to apply theory to the actual conditions of a community. Communicating through jargon-freelanguage forces all partners to think through the actual meaning of their work in terms of how it will affect real people in real places.

■ Community partners emphasize the importance offraming engagement activities in terms of how broadissues play out locally. For example, a community part-ner involved in reducing homelessness talked abouthow, in the community in which she works, peoplewithout permanent homes find shelter by living for afew days with whomever will take them in; they donot typically live on the streets or stay in shelters vol-untarily. She points out that students and faculty mem-bers are not usually aware of the impacts of this kindof homelessness or how to address it. For communitypartners, this kind of disconnect signals a limitedunderstanding by the higher education partner, as wellas having the practical side-effect of supervising stu-dents who are not well prepared for work in heragency.

(Cont’d from page 11)

-13-

benefits of engaging with higher education institutionsdid not outweigh these costs. Many of the participatingcommunity partners provided examples of how theirorganization had begun to limit or decline to renewparticular engagement opportunities. This issue is par-ticularly important given that all the partners who par-ticipated in the summit are actively engaged with atleast one higher education institution. They represent,in some sense, the group of community leaders whohave chosen to stay involved, often, as noted earlier,because of a belief in the importance of student civiceducation rather than for the direct benefits to theirorganizations.

PARITY AND PRIVILEGEFor the community partners, parity, power, andprivilege are always part of a partnership, evenif they are not addressed overtly. The commu-nity partners revealed that they particularlyvalue campus partners who recognize andaddress these issues.

Issues of parity, power, and priv-ilege ran consistently throughsummit discussions. They arose inseveral ways. First, the communitypartners have learned that effec-tive partnerships require certainelements, such as respect for theexpertise of community partners,shared resources and roles and attention to the detailsof implementation—all of which speak to parity.Second, the partners believe that campus partners whoattend to these issues demonstrate an understanding ofcommunity processes, interests, and capacity, includinga sense of its assets as well as its needs. The communitypartners suggested that this perspective is more likely tolead to successful community outcomes, and thus, to tipthe ratio of benefits and costs toward community bene-fit. Finally, the community partners gauge the level ofparity in relationships with a given higher educationinstitution as an indicator that the higher educationpartners have educated themselves, and have thecapacity to educate their students about importantissues of privilege and oppression. This makes it morelikely that community/campus interactions will berespectful at an individual level and insightful at issueand policy levels. According to some of the communi-ty partners, many of the risks or harm done by commu-

nity/campus interactions come from the inability orunwillingness to directly address issues of privilege,oppression, and power as they play out in local andbroader settings.

The community partners pointed out that unspokenissues of privilege and oppression—particularly in theform of structural or institutional racism—have under-mined the ability of partners to engage with communi-ty residents and address root causes of community prob-lems, and contributed to overlooking opportunities tobuild on leadership that already exists among commu-nity residents. The community partners would particu-larly like to avoid reinforcing analyses of communityconditions that tend to associate problems with thebehaviors of residents alone, instead of examiningstructural factors (such as persistent resource disinvest-ments or policies that promote the inequitable distribu-tion of resources) and ways that power relationshipsoperate locally. Since higher educational institutions,like community-based organizations themselves, arepart of these power relationships, the community/cam-

pus partnership functions best whenpartners acknowledge these issuesand can address them at a highlevel of sophistication at variousstages of partnership development(when establishing partnershipgoals, setting up governance poli-cies or structures, allocatingresources, and choosing who will

decide whether the effort is successful).

The partners also pointed out that people work fromtheir assumptions about these things, whether theyarticulate them or not. The more that people do notraise and openly discuss issues of power, racism, clas-sism, oppression, and privilege, the more they mustmake assumptions, often incorrect, based on incom-plete information about why their partners make vari-ous strategic decisions. Unwillingness to put theseissues on the table may suggest a lack of expertise abouthow to deal with them. Failure to address these issueseither as individual or structural issues tends to exacer-bate their importance in the partnership. The chal-lenges that the partners observe in this regard are well-documented in community building literature.(See, for example, DelGado, 2002; Guinier and Torres, 2002; Maguire and Leiderman, 2001; Batten andLeiderman, 1995).

...the community partners gauge thelevel of parity...as an indicator that the higher education partners haveeducated themselves, and have thecapacity to educate their studentsabout important issues of privilege

and oppression.

-14-

The community partners were quick to point outthat they hold themselves accountable, along withtheir campus partners, for putting these kinds of issueson the table. They recognize their own reluctance topursue these conversations and do not view themselvesas either powerless or lacking responsibility for creatingparity in their relationships with higher educationinstitutions.

Indicators of ParityCommunity partners are keenly aware of parity in theeveryday workings of community/campus partnerships.Partners note the following indicators of parity:

■ Early consideration of sustainability, as evidencethat partners are interested in creating meaningfulcommunity outcomes. The community partnersexpressed their desire to be assured that the invest-ment they are making to develop the partnershipwill not be for a short-lived projectthat will end when the semester orschool year is over. The partnersnoted that to create meaningfulcommunity outcomes, communityengagement work requires a sus-tained effort that develops anddeepens over time.

■ Processes and staffing that distribute authority andfunds across community and campus partners.Through such efforts, campus partners demonstraterespect for the competency of community partnersand help build organizational and community assets.For example, as part of this grant program, threecampuses used grant funds to hire a coordinator foran engagement initiative. In one instance, the fundswent to a community-based organization to hire acommunity leader to coordinate the partnershipamong the community partners. In the other, fundshelped support a work-study position held by a com-munity leader, enabling the individual to run a cam-pus coordinating office while pursuing a master’sdegree. Another higher education institution hired acommunity agency staff member to be an adjunctprofessor.

■ Issue or advocacy alliances, including the willing-ness of a campus to “step-up” in settings otherthan the partnership (such as at city council or

before a leadership group) in support of a commu-nity driven agenda. The community partners wereespecially appreciative of campus trustees and seniorleadership who promote a community cause (forexample, improved transportation, changes to zoningconditions, loan funds for small businesses, or anti-racism efforts) in settings where access is sometimesdenied to community residents.

■ Welcoming community partners onto campus inroles normally reserved for faculty. The communitypartners noticed and appreciated institutions ofhigher education that walk the talk when it comesto parity. Institutions of higher education need to gobeyond simply saying community partners are “equalmembers;” they must demonstrate it through theiractions. One way to show parity is to honor commu-nity partners’ experiences and expertise by invitingthem to co-teach a course, train faculty members, or

help design curricula.

The community partnerswent on to cite examples andexperiences of feeling used ordevalued in their partnershipswith campuses. They providethe following examples:

■ The many instances when higher education institu-tions receive funding or opportunities for scholarshipbased on their location in economically distressed oroppressed communities, without sharing thoseresources or using them to directly benefit the peoplebehind these data. The community partners notedthat the community as a whole usually does not findout about these opportunities in any routine or easilyaccessible fashion. This makes it particularly difficultfor community organizations or individuals to holdthe institution accountable for the outcomes of com-munity focused activities. This condition applies tosome community/campus partnership grants andmany other grants, research, scholarship, and otheractivities.

■ When students are consistently assigned to “tour” aneighborhood, or are otherwise offered a communityas a laboratory for their own growth, without signifi-cant preparation and an understanding of context.Frequent assignments of this type are perceived asdisrespectful and demeaning to community residents.

The community partners were especially appreciative of campus

trustees and senior leadership whopromote a community cause...in

settings where access is sometimesdenied to community residents.

-15-

Some of the community partners at the summit feltthat such assignments not only reflect poorly on aninstitution’s understanding of community processes,but such assignments can be perceived as disrespect-ful or demeaning because they reveal that the peoplemaking the assignments are not aware of their ownprivilege.

■ When faculty members structure community engage-ment activities without first assessing a community’sinterests and needs, send large numbers of studentson short-notice, or otherwise fail to plan with com-munity representatives or partners;

■ When partners fail to hold themselves and studentsaccountable for completing meaningful work, so thataccountability becomes the full responsibility of acommunity partner, or does not occur at all; and

■ When a higher education institution takes a positiondirectly counter to a community’s stated interests,without informing or engaging community partnersabout the position. For example, a higher educationinstitution deeply involved in community/campusengagement was reported to have blocked furthercreation of a community college that residents andcommunity partners were successfully developing upto that point.

These kinds of activities are perceived to send thefollowing messages:

◆ Campus partners have not taken the time tounderstand how community organizations orprocesses work and are distanced from commu-nity residents;

◆ When push comes to shove, campus partnersare only interested in getting their own service,research, and course needs met;

◆ The campus does not respect their communitypartners or the work they do; and

◆ The engagement effort is for show—perhapsonly to meet mandated requirements or forpublic relations purposes, but is not a genuineeffort at engagement or community betterment.

Community partners created a list of com-mon organizational resources and limita-

tions that need to be kept in mind by campuspersonnel when partnering with communityorganizations:

■ Capacities vary among community partners,and their resources are often stretched very thin.

■ Community demographics and most pressingneeds are always changing (though underly-ing causes stay fairly constant). It is impor-tant to stay current on how issues play outlocally and to understand current communitycharacteristics.

■ Community partners may or may not begrass roots organizations. The depth of theirconnections with residents varies a lot.

■ Community partners’ standards for volun-teers are tied to the volunteers’ abilities tohelp an organization achieve its missions.

■ A given community organization usually hasmany partners—in higher education, othercommunity groups, and public sector depart-ments.

■ Senior staff of community agencies haveexpertise, often hold advanced degrees, areoften very familiar with current research onthe issues on which they work, and are expe-rienced at policy and planning.

-16-

III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY

Both the institution of higher education and the com-munity partner are responsible for nurturing the condi-tions that lead to the development of a good partnership.

Two key findings emerged from the summit:

■ Good partnerships are created and sustained overtime, through the cumulative effects of even themost routine interactions and outcomes. In thisinstance, the devil really is in the details; and

■ Community partners hold themselves equallyaccountable to institutions of higher education fornurturing the conditions that lead to the develop-ment of a good partnership.

Drawing on the summit participants’ cumulativeexperiences with a broad range of community/campuspartnerships, the following seven recommendationswere offered to institutions of higher education andcommunity partners interested in strengthening theirpartnerships.

1) Allot time for relationship building early on,and as an ongoing part of community engagementwork. Effective, sustainable, and successful partner-ships require trust and cohesion among their mem-bers, clear goals and objectives, effective communi-cation, and parity among partners. Achieving thisrequires a purposeful, concerted effort, based on thejoint development of a set of key principles aroundwhich the partnership revolves. Before any activitiesbegin, time should be spent by all partners getting toknow each other, building trust, clarifying expecta-tions, creating effective communication systems, andclarifying the contributions each partner will maketo the effort. Trust is often built through the creationof a participative culture whereby considerable time and resources are devoted to enlarging theskills, knowledge, and responsibilities of partnershipmembers.

2) Learn how to talk together about racial, ethnic,and economic inequalities and their causes withcandor, and incorporate those discussions into com-munity/campus partnership-building work. It isimportant to address these issues and go beyondsuperficial understandings or assumptions about howthey play out in community/campus partnerships.Lack of understanding and lack of candid discussion,can lead to inappropriate or disrespectful planningand implementation, ill-informed strategies, and canexacerbate poor town/gown relationships. On theother hand, ongoing, skillfully facilitated, frank dis-cussion of understandings builds trust, provideslearning opportunities for community and campuspartners, including students, and has been a startingpoint for bridging traditional institutional and com-munity divides.

3) Identify the underlying reasons for establishingor developing community/campus partnerships.While partnerships between community-basedorganizations and their local institutions of highereducation are formed for a variety of reasons, thereoften remain many underlying goals and implicitintentions that are never brought to the fore.Because hidden agendas seem to breed mistrust,these underlying, implicit intentions (improvingtown/gown relationships, for example) need to beexplicated and discussed in order for the partnershipto achieve its full potential. The trust that is builtamong the partnership members can serve as theglue that will keep the partnership together duringinevitable personnel changes, partnership goalrealignments, and funding challenges.

-17-

4) Understand the organizational contexts inwhich all partnership members work. Community-based organizations and institutions of higher educa-tion often operate on different sets of norms whenengaging in community/campus partnerships. Forexample, community partners may place high valueon solidarity, community, equality, freedom, justice,individual dignity, respect for differences, civility,and political democracy. Colleges and universitiesplace high value on academic integrity and legitima-cy, educational value, knowledge production and dis-semination, individual expertise and specialization,peer-review and critique, and academic freedom.Understanding when respective values are in synchor in conflict helps to create a foundation for estab-lishing mutually determined goals. Successful com-munity/campus partnerships develop an understand-ing of the expectations, norms, culture, and tradi-tions of various organizations. An understanding ofeach other’s cultures can help ensure the establish-ment of realistic expectations and effective strategiesfor all involved.

5) Ensure fairness in the exchange of resourcesamong partnership members. Along with receivingbenefits from the partnership, each member of thecommunity/campus partnership should have some-thing to offer to the other partnership members.Partnerships in which members give much butreceive little in return are less likely to be successful.The resources that are to be shared and exchangedshould be discussed and agreed upon at the goal-set-ting stage, in order to ensure that everyone is clearon what each partnership member will offer andreceive.

6) Colleges and universities can invite communitypartners onto campus so they can share theirexpertise with faculty and students. Campuses thatencourage community partners to share in the role of“expert” can enrich academic offerings and be mod-els of parity. Community partners can be asked toteach in traditional classes as well as classes focusedon community engagement activities to help addresssome of the barriers between campus and communitypartners.

7) Be meticulous about the details. It is importantto keep in mind that all the systems necessary foreffective community/campus partnerships—prepar-ing faculty members and students for communityengagement work, attending to issues of privilege,parity, and accountability, and setting standards forquality and success—need to be put in place beforecommunity engagement activities begin. Creativeuses of the resources and opportunities that commu-nity/campus partners make available need to beexplored in ways that help challenge entrenchedassumptions and feelings of the partnership mem-bers. The success of the partnership should periodi-cally be assessed from a variety of perspectives,including outcomes for each partner and to the satis-faction of each partner. Finally, all partners need tofollow through on their promises, and should agreeto adhere to high standards of performance.

-18-

ENDNOTES

1 For purposes of this article, community/campusengagement refers to a formalized relationshipbetween a college or university and one or morecommunity-based entities or groups to meet academic and community goals. Service-learning,experiential education, internships, community-based research, and community service fall under this definition of community/campusengagement.

2 See, for example Chaskin, R., Brown, P.,Venkatesh, S., and Vidal, A., 2001; Maguire andLeiderman, 2000; Stephens, S., Leiderman, S.H.,Wolf, W., and McCarthy, P., 1994; Stephens, S. and Leiderman, S.H., 1999) and materials available at www.aspenroundtable.org andwww.aecf.org (Technical Assistance ResourceCenter).

3 People working in the sustainable livelihoodsarena explain the impact of power differentials increating and maintaining inequities in terms ofdifferences in power among stakeholders. Theynote: “Differences in power among stakeholdersshape their opportunities to participate in thedecisions that affect them….strategies often tar-get sites of inequity by: facilitating access of dis-empowered groups to power, authority, andresources, raising consciousness about inequityand, strengthening the ability of marginalizedpeople to transform existing structures.” (seewww.sdgateway.net/livelihoods/actors.htm).

4 Institutionalization, as used here, refers to theprocess by which the value of experiential educa-tion and working with or for community goals(and the practices to broaden and make opera-tional those values) are fully embedded withinthe academic fabric and everyday culture of ahigher education institution.

5 For other categories and dimensions, see Furco,2002. “Institutionalizing Service-Learning inHigher Education.” Journal of Public Affairs, VI,39-67; and Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C.,Manjarrez, C., Romanik, C., Corvington, P.,Ferryman, K., Freiberf, S., and Kim, D., 2002.Lessons from the Community OutreachPartnership Center Program: Final Report.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

6 For information on the link between community engagement and student learning,see Batchelder, T.H. and Root, S., 1994. “Effectsof An Undergraduate Program to IntegrateAcademic Learning and Service; Cognitive,Prosocial Cognitive, and Identity Outcomes.”Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-356; Eyler, J.S.,and Giles, D.E., 1999. Where’s the Learning inService-Learning? San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers; Markus, G.B., Howard, J., and King,D., 1993. “Integrating Community Service andClassroom Instruction Enhances Learning: ResultsFrom an Experiment.” Education Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419; Sax, L.J., 2000.“Citizenship Development and the AmericanCollege Student.” In Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). CivicResponsibility in Higher Education. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 3-18 (2000).

7 Community partners were invited to discusstheir own organizational and community-basedperspectives. They were not asked to representthe perspective of the overall partnership orhigher education partner.

8 The definition of “good” was intentionally leftopen for discussion.

-19-

REFERENCES

Batchelder, T.H. and Root, S. “Effects of anUndergraduate Program to Integrate AcademicLearning and Service; Cognitive, ProsocialCognitive, and Identity Outcomes.” Journal ofAdolescence, 17, 341-356, 1994.

Batten, S.T. and Leiderman, S.A. Project Change:Planning an Anti-Racism Initiative. Bala Cynwyd, PA:CAPD, 1995.

Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S. and Vidal, A.Building Community Capacity. New York: Aldine DeGuyter, 2001.

Cone, D. and Payne, P. “When Campus andCommunity Collide: Campus-CommunityPartnerships from a Community Perspective.” TheJournal of Public Affairs, VI, 203-218, 2002.

Delgado, Gary. Mapping the ImmigrantInfrastructure. Oakland, CA: Applied ResearchCenter, 2002.

Eyler, J.S. and Giles, D.E. Where’s the Learning inService-Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1999.

Furco, A. “Institutionalizing Service-Learning inHigher Education.” The Journal of Public Affairs, VI,39-67, 2002.

Giles, D.E. and Cruz, N. “Where’s the Community inService-Learning?” Michigan Journal of CommunityService-Learning, Special Issue, 2000.

Gray, M.J., Ondaaje, E.H., Fricker, R.D., andGeschwind, S.A. “Assessing Service-Learning:Results from a Survey of Learn and Serve America,Higher Education.” Change, 32, 31-29, 2000.

Guinier, L. and Torres, G. The Miner’s Canary.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. B. TheMotivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley& Sons, 1959.

Harkavy, I. “School-Community-UniversityPartnerships: Effectively Integrating CommunityBuilding and Education Reform.” University andCommunity Schools, 6 (1/2), 7-24, 1999.

Holland, B. “Factors and Strategies that InfluenceFaculty Involvement in Public Service.” The Journalof Public Service and Outreach, 4, 37-43, 1999.

Holland, B. and Gelmon, S. The State of theEngaged Campus: What Have We Learned AboutBuilding and Sustaining University and CommunityPartnerships? AAHE Bulletin, American Associationfor Higher Education, 3-6, 1998.

Leiderman, S.H. Guide to Collaboration: Lessonsfrom the Children First Initiative. Philadelphia, PA:CAPD, 2001.

Maguire, J.D. and Leiderman, S.H. 15 Tools forCreating Healthy, Productive Interracial/Multicultural Communities. Claremont, CA: TheInstitute for Democratic Renewal and The ProjectChange Anti-Racism Initiative, 1998.

Markus, G.B., Howard, J., and King, D. “IntegratingCommunity Service and Classroom InstructionEnhances Learning: Results from an Experiment.Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4),410-419, 1993.

Maurrasse, D. Beyond the Campus: How Collegesand Universities Form Partnerships with TheirCommunities. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Robinson, G. “Service-Learning at CommunityColleges.” Horizons. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Community Colleges, 2-4, 2002.

-20-

Sax, L.J., “Citizenship Development and theAmerican College Student.” In Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). CivicResponsibility in Higher Education. Phoenix: OryxPress, 3-18, 2000.

Stephens, S.A., Leiderman, S.A., Wolf, andMcCarthy, P.T. Building Capacity for System Reform.Bala Cynwyd, PA: CAPD, 1994.

Stephens, S.A. and Leiderman, S.H. New Models ofCommunity-Foundation Partnerships: LessonsLearned from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Pre-Birth Through Age-Three Initiative. Bala Cynwyd,PA: CAPD, 1999.

Stoecker, R. “Practices and Challenges ofCommunity-Based Research.” The Journal of PublicAffairs, VI, 219-239, 2002.

Vidal, A, Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C,Romanik, C, Corvington, P., Ferryman, K, Freiberf,S, and Kim, D. Lessons from the CommunityOutreach Partnership Center Program: Fina Report.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2003.

Walshok, M. Knowledge With Boundaries: WhatAmerica’s Research Universities Can Do For theEconomy, The Workplace, and the Community. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Ward, K. “Addressing Academic Culture: Service-Learning, Organizations, and Faculty Work.” InRhoads, R.A. and Howard, J. (Eds.), AcademicService-Learning: A Pedagogy of Action andReflection. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Zlotkowski, E. “Pedagogy and Engagement.” InBringle, R. and Duffy, D. (Eds.), Colleges andUniversities as Citizens. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,96-120, 1999.

-21-

APPENDIX A

ENGAGING COMMUNITIES AND

CAMPUSES: PARTICIPANTS

■ Augsburg College (MN) and Project for Pride inLiving, Cedar Cultural Center, Our Saviour’sCenter, Cedar Riverside School, Brian CoyleCommunity Center, Habitat for Humanity, Friendsof the Mississippi River, Youth Farm and MarketProject, In the Heart of the Beast, Longfellow/Seward Healthy Seniors Project, and San MiguelSchool

■ Bates College (ME) and LA Excels

■ Calvin College (MI) and Grand Rapids AreaCenter for Ecumenism and Garfield DevelopmentCorporation

■ Chatham College (PA) and Communities inSchools, Conservation Consultants, Inc., the EastEnd Neighborhood Forum, and GlobalConnections Pittsburgh

■ Emory & Henry College (VA) and WashingtonCounty Schools, People Incorporated ofSouthwest Virginia, Washington County Office onYouth, Highlands Community Services, andDamascus Town Council.

■ Loyola University New Orleans (LA) and CatholicCharities, Volunteers for America, JuniorAchievement, Association for Retarded Citizensof Greater New Orleans (ARC), Help OneStudent to Succeed (HOST), and BenjaminBanneker Elementary School

■ Madonna University (MI) and All SaintsNeighborhood Center

■ Mars Hill College (NC) and the North CarolinaJuvenile Evaluation Center, Hospitality House ofAsheville, and the Richard L. HoffmanFoundation, Inc.

■ Otterbein College (OH) and the Westerville AreaChamber of Commerce, Communities In School,First Link, Columbus Foundation, Columbus CitySchools, Westerville Schools, and the City ofColumbus

■ Saint Joseph’s College (ME) and Crooked RiverElementary School, Windham Family ResourceCenter, and the City of Standish

■ St. Thomas University (FL) and Florida MemorialCollege and the Campus and Community Alliancefor North Dade

■ Tougaloo College (MS) and United Way of theCapital Area, Inc., Tougaloo Community CivicLeague, Jackson Public Schools, TougalooCommunity Center, the Hinds County MentalHealth Commission, and the InternationalAssociation of Machinists Center forAdministering Rehabilitation and EmploymentServices (IAM CARES)

■ Wartburg College (IA) and Bartels LutheranRetirement Community, Waverly-Shell RockSchool District, and Bremwood LutheranChildren’s Home

-22-

APPENDIX B COMMUNITY SUMMIT

PARTICIPANTS

SEPTEMBER 27-28, 2002WASHINGTON, DC

Martha Are, Hospitality House of Asheville,Asheville, NC. Higher education partner: Mars HillCollege

Ernie Braganza, Washington County Office onYouth, Abingdon, VA. Higher education partner:Emory & Henry College

Doris Bridgeman, United Way of the Capital Area,Inc., Jackson, MS. Higher education partner:Tougaloo College

Linda Brooks, Town of Standish, Standish, ME.Higher education partner: Saint Joseph’s College ofMaine

Stephanie Byrdziak, Cedar Riverside School,Minneapolis, MN. Higher education partner:Augsburg College

James Clausell, North Dade Community Council,Carol City, FL. Higher education partner: SaintThomas University

Terry Cuson, North Dade Regional Chamber ofCommerce, Miami, FL. Higher education partner:Saint Thomas University

Sue DeVries, Garfield Development Corporation,Grand Rapids, MI. Higher education partner: Calvin College

Shirley Gibson, North Dade Community Council,Miami, FL. Higher education partner: Saint Thomas University

Jay McHale, Cedar Cultural Center, Minneapolis,MN. Higher education partner: Augsburg College

Linda Midgett, People Incorporated of SouthwestVirginia, Abingdon, VA. Higher education partner:Emory & Henry College

Sara Neikirk, Communities in Schools, Columbus,OH. Higher education partner: Otterbein College

Dennis Nordmoe, All Saints Neighborhood Center,Detroit, MI. Higher education partner: Madonna University

Jean Olivis, Communities in Schools, Pittsburgh, PA.Higher education partner: Chatham College

Ellen Ridley-Hooper, Food & Fellowships Inc.,Scarborough, ME. Higher education partner: SaintJoseph’s College of Maine

Carol Peterson, Longfellow/Seward Healthy SeniorsProject, Minneapolis, MN. Higher education part-ner: Augsburg College

Shakura Sabur, East End Neighborhood Forum,Pittsburgh, PA. Higher education partner: ChathamCollege

Stan Slessor, Waverly-Shell Rock School District,Waverly, IA. Higher education partner: Wartburg College

Deyni Ventura, Garfield Development Corporation,Grand Rapids, MI. Higher education partner: CalvinCollege

-23-

ADDITIONAL

RESOURCES

Auspos, P., Brown P., Chaskin, R., Fulbright-Anderson, K., Hamilton, R. and Kublish, A.C. VoicesFrom the Field II: Reflections on ComprehensiveCommunity Change. The Aspen Institute, 2002.

Benson, L., Harkavy, I, and Puckett, J. “AnImplementation Revolution as a Strategy forFulfilling the Democratic Promise of University-Community Partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an Experiment in Progress.” Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 24-45, 2000.

Campus Compact. Membership web page, 2003.http://www.compact.org/membership/

Chaskin, R., (Ed.). Building Community Capacity.Aldine de Guyter, 2001.

Chavez, V., Duran, B., Baker, Q.E., Avila, M.M., andWallerstein, N. “The Dance of Race and Privilege in Community Based Participatory Research.” InMinkler, M. and Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Ciofalo, A. Perspectives on Experiential Learning: AGuide to Internship Management for Educators andProfessionals. Krieger Publishing Company, 1992.

Connors, K. and Seifer, S. Partnership Perspectives.San Francisco: Community-Campus Partnerships forHealth, Summer 2000.

Dombro, A. L., O’Donnell, N. S., Galinsky, E.,Melcher, S.G., and Farber, A. CommunityMobilization: Strategies to Support Young Childrenand Their Families. New York: Families and WorkInstitute, 1996.

Duenes, L., Ciurea, M., Edelsberg, E. and Parkes, R.Building Partnerships for Neighborhood Change.Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001.

Harkavy, I. and Wiewel, W. “University-CommunityPartnerships: Current State and Future Issues.”Metropolitan Universities, (6)3, 7-14, Winter, 1995.

Lerner, R.M. and Simon, L.A.K. (Eds.) University-Community Collaboratives for the Twenty-FirstCentury. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998.

Mayfield, L. “Town and Gown in America: SomeHistorical and Institutional Issues of the EngagedUniversity.” Education for Health, 14(2), 231-240,2001.

Potapchuk, M. Holding Up the Mirror: WorkingInterdependently for Just and InclusiveCommunities. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 2002.

Schmidt, A. and Robby, M.A. “What’s the Value ofService-Learning to the Community?” MichiganJournal of Community Service Learning, Fall, 2002.

Snyder, E. “Making the Connection: College andCommunity.” Campus Community Collaborations:Examples and Resources for Community Colleges.September, 1996.

Sullivan, M., Chao, S., Allen, C., Koné, A., Pierre-Louis, M., and Krieger, J. “Community-ResearcherPartnerships: Perspectives from the Field”. InMinkler, M. and Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Working with Members: Building Capacity for LocalDecision Making. Washington, DC: Center for theStudy of of Social Policy, 1998.

Young, W.B. “University-Community Partnerships—Why Bother?” Metropolitan Universities, (6)3, 71-78,Winter, 1995.

-24-

COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT

COLLEGES (CIC)/CONSORTIUM FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

(CAPHE)

The Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) is an associa-tion of more than 500 independent colleges and universi-ties that work together to strengthen college and universi-ty leadership, sustain high-quality education, and enhanceprivate higher education’s contributions to society. To ful-fill this mission, CIC provides its members with skills,tools, and knowledge that address aspects of leadership,financial management and performance, academic quality,and institutional visibility. The Consortium for theAdvancement of Private Higher Education (CAPHE) is agrantmaking unit of CIC that assists corporations andfoundations in stimulating reform in private colleges anduniversities for the benefit of higher education and socie-ty. Over the years, CAPHE has administered more than$17 million in grants to approximately 200 independentcolleges and universities nationwide for more than 30 cor-porations and foundations. CAPHE grants have focusedon issues of costs and pricing, teaching and learning,diversity, technology, teacher preparation, and institution-al planning, among other topics. Leadership for theEngaging Communities and Campuses grant program wasprovided by Michelle D. Gilliard, executive director,CAPHE; Jacqueline Skinner, associate director, CAPHE;and Stephen Gibson, projects coordinator, CIC.

SALLY LEIDERMAN

Sally Leiderman is president of the Center for Assessmentand Policy Development (CAPD), an evaluation andsocial policy organization, based near Philadelphia. Theorganization works nationally to support foundations,

ABOUT THE

CONTRIBUTORS

communities, and institutions working to improve out-comes for children, families, and neighborhoods, in theareas of education, family and child well-being, adolescentpregnancy and prevention, anti-racism work, leadership,and civic engagement. Ms. Leiderman provides policy andevaluation support to several foundations and communi-ties involved in comprehensive community buildingefforts and leadership development. CAPD’s recent publi-cations include A Community Builder’s Toolkit: 15 Tools forCreating Healthy, Productive Interracial/ MulticulturalCommunities, with the Institute for Democratic Renewaland Project Change Anti-Racism Program; and Trainingfor Racial Equity and Inclusion: A Guide to SelectedPrograms, with the Alliance for Conflict Transformation,the Aspen Institute Roundtable on ComprehensiveCommunity Initiatives, and Project Change. CAPD isalso currently developing a toolbag that communities canuse to assess their own progress toward anti-racism andinclusion goals, in partnership with NABRE, a program ofthe Joint Center on Political and Economic Studies. Formore information, please see www.capd.org.

ANDREW FURCO

Andrew Furco is director of the Service-LearningResearch & Development Center at the University ofCalifornia-Berkeley, where he serves on the GraduateSchool of Education faculty. His publications include thebooks, Service-Learning: The Essence of the Pedagogy andService-Learning through a Multidiscipli-nary Lens, which heco-edited with Shelley Billig. His articles have appearedin the Journal of Adolesence, Journal of Public Affairs, TheJournal of Cooperative Education, and Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service-Learning. He has presented papers onservice-learning, civic engagement, educational reform,and experiential learning at more than 100 conferences

-25-

and institutes in the United States and abroad. He cur-rently serves as a member of the National Review Boardfor the Scholarship of Engagement, the AmericanAssociation for Higher Education Service-LearningConsulting Corps, and the National Service-LearningPartnership Board of Directors.

JENNIFER ZAPF

Jennifer Zapf is an evaluator with more than ten years ofexperience conducting evaluations, research, and strategicplanning for public and nonprofit organizations. Dr. Zapfreceived a Masters of Arts from Stanford University inHigher Education Administration, Research, and Policyand a Ph.D. in Educational Evaluation from theUniversity of Virginia. As both a practitioner and appliedresearcher, she has worked with foundations, public insti-tutions, collaboratives, and community stakeholders onimproving the life chances of children and families at riskfor poor educational, health, and life outcomes. At theCenter for Assessment and Policy Development, Dr. Zapf

has worked on assessments of national, state, and commu-nity-based initiatives. Her recent work includes twonational projects that fund higher education institutionalcollaboratives to promote civic understanding and partici-pation. She also serves as a national evaluation coach andtrainer for AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, andNational Senior Service Corps programs throughout theUnited States.

MEGAN GOSS

Megan Goss is a doctoral student in the Department ofEducation at UC Berkeley and a graduate studentresearcher in Berkeley’s Service-Learning Research andDevelopment Center. Her research interests include issuesof literacy as a cultural activity, educational reform, andalternative education options within the public schoolsetting. Ms. Goss has taught in grades K-5 and has a read-ing specialist’s credential from Berkeley.

One Dupont Circle ■ Suite 320Washington, DC 20036Tel: (202) 466-7230 ■ Fax: (202) 466-7238E-mail: cic@cic.nche.edu ■ www.cic.edu