DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 481 879 HE 036 346

AUTHOR Leiderman, Sally; Furco, Andrew; Zapf, Jennifer; Goss, Megan

TITLE Building Partnerships with College Campuses: CommunityPerspectives.

INSTITUTION Council of Independent Colleges, Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 2002-00-00

NOTE 33p.; A Publication of the Consortium for the Advancement ofPrivate Higher Education's Engaging Communities and CampusesGrant Program.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Community Cooperation; *Higher Education; *Partnerships inEducation; School Business Relationship; *School CommunityRelationship

ABSTRACT

The information that forms the basis of this brochure wasdrawn from a summit of community organization representatives who have workedin partnerships with institutions of higher education. The brochurehighlights three issues community partners believe must be fully addressed ifcommunity/campus partnerships are to be successful and mutually beneficial.The first issue is the importance of follow-through for building sustainablepartnerships. The second is how community partners weigh the costs andbenefits of partnering with an institution of higher education. The third isthe influence of parity on community members' attitudes toward their campuspartners. Community partners suggest that partnerships with colleges anduniversities provide a range of benefits to their organizations. One risk isa sense that the community partner is lending its credibility within acommunity to the campus. Other costs include the time required, theopportunity cost of not doing funded or billable work, loss of organizationalidentity, and the "irritation" factor in relationships. Some mediatingfactors are identified. Community partners have created a list of commonorganizational resources and limitations that need to be kept in mind bycampus personnel when partnering with community organizations. The brochureincludes recommendations and implications for practice and policy. A list of16 annotated resources is provided. (SLD)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

BUILDING PARTNERSHIPSWITH COLLEGE CAMPUSES:COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVESby Sally Leiderman, Andrew Furco,Jennifer Zapf and Megan Goss

A Publication of the Consortium for theAdvancement of Private Higher Education's

Engaging Communities and CampusesGrant Program

THE COUNCIL OFINDEPENDENT COLLEGES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice oi Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION. CENTER (ERIC)

rf)This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily represent 1

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

5 6-, PeliNicr

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

The Council ofIndependent

Colleges (CIC), anassociation of morethan 500 collegesand universities, hasnearly ten years of

experience in pro-moting partnerships

among institutions ofhigher education and

community organizations.Over the years, CIC and the

Consortium for the Advancementof Private Higher Education (CAPHE),

its grantmaking unit, have conducted numerousnational grant programs and workshops on thistopic. Through the evaluation of CAPHE'sEngaging Communities and Campuses grantprogram, a variety of focus groups were heldwith individuals representing the colleges andcommunity partners. The information thatforms the basis of this brochure was drawn froma summit of community organization represen-tatives who have worked in partnerships withinstitutions of higher education.

In September 2002, CAPHE convened 21leaders of community organizations fromaround the country in Washington, DC. Theseleaders and their organizations are currentlyengaged in a partnership with the institutionsof higher education participating in CAPHE'sEngaging Communities and Campuses grantprogram. The summit provided an opportunityto analyze the cumulative knowledge of com-munity leaders, based on their experienceswith higher education institutions. Althougha number of the issues discussed during thesummit were drawn from the communityleaders' experiences with the EngagingCommunities and Campuses program, many

-2-

of the perceptions presented here extendbeyond those formed through the Engaginggrant program.

THE SUMMIT'S TWIN GOALS WERE:

to bring community perspectives into clearerfocus, by documenting the perspectives,experiences, and voices of experienced com-munity partners regarding the creation andmaintenance of partnerships between com-munity organizations and institutions ofhigher education; and

to understand better those perspectives as away to gain insight into common challengesand opportunities that ultimately lead tomore successful and effective partnershipsbetween institutions of higher education andcommunity organizations.

The brochure's intended audience includeshigher education and community leaders whodesign and administer community/campus part-nerships, as well as the individuals who partici-pate in them, including faculty members, stu-dents, community leaders, and residents.

The summit was planned and led by a teamof CAPHE evaluators and staff, with supportfrom an advisory group of community leaders.Discussions took place in a variety of formats,including focus groups and work sessions. Datacollected during the summit have been com-piled and analyzed by CAPHE's evaluators,Sally Leiderman and Jennifer Zapf of theCenter for Assessment and Policy Development(CAPD), and Andrew Furco and Megan Gossof the University of California-Berkeley.The complete findings from this analysis areprovided in Building Partnerships with CollegeCampuses: Community Perspectives OnlineMonograph, that is available on CIC's website(www.cic.edu).

-3-

4

The Engaging Communities and Campusesgrant program awarded 13 private colleges

and universities up to $80,000 each to developcampus-wide initiatives that prepare studentsfor a lifetime of contributions to society. Thisprogram, made possible through the generoussupport of The Atlantic Philanthropies, assistsindependent colleges and universities and theircommunity organizational partners to extendand deepen their commitments to student learn-ing and community interests through the devel-opment of community/campus collaborationscentered on the creation of community-focusedexperiential learning opportunities for students.The program supports building the organization-al capacity of campuses in one or more of fourkey areasfaculty skills and knowledge, assist-ing faculty members in developing new experi-ential learning knowledge and skills; institutionalinfrastructure, establishing infrastructure to workwith community organizations; academic culture,creating a campus culture supportive of facultymembers' work with experiential learning peda-gogies; and partner relationships, strengtheninginstitutional partnerships with community organi-zations. While all of these aspects were touchedon during the summit, this brochure focuses onthe creation and maintenance of successful part-ner relationships.

The literature on community/campus partner-ships has described the key factors that pro-mote the success and longevity of such partner-ships. However, much of the literature has notdug deeply enough to explore the rules andnorms that influence the nature of community/campus collaboration. This brochure highlightsthe three issues community partners believemust be fully addressed if community/campuspartnerships are to be successful and mutuallybeneficial. The first issue is on the importance offollow-through for building sustainable partner-ships. The second issue is on how communitypartners weigh the costs and benefits of part-nering with an institution of higher education.The third issue is the influence of parity on com-munity members' attitudes toward their campuspartners. Each of these issues is discussed in thisbrochure. Consideration of these issues can helpput campus and community members on a moresecure path to partnership success.

-4-

5 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

BUILDING

SUSTAINABLE

PARTNERSHIPS

For community partners, a goodcommunity/campus partnership ischaracterized by careful preparation,excellent implementation, andmeticulous follow-through.

The summit attendees have had much experi-ence partnering with institutions of higher edu-cation. In this regard, they have thought a greatdeal about what constitutes a good partnershipor engagement activity with an institution ofhigher education. For them, a good partnershipis one that is effective in meeting short-termgoals, contributes to long-term ones, developsrelationships with higher education institutionswith the promise of benefits beyond the resultsof a given engagement activity, and is worthrepeating.

Good community/campus partnerships arecreated and sustained through the routineinteractions and cumulative outcomes of theirprocesses and activities. They are intentional,with a focus not just on design and broad con-cept, but also on careful preparation every time,excellent implementation, and meticulous fol-low-through.

WHAT ARE THE CORE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE

PARTNERSHIPS?

Over the course of the summit, the communitypartners identified the following elements asbeing key to effective community/campuspartnerships:

there is a set of mutually determined goalsand processes, including processes to selectand trin people who will come into contactwith a community organization or communi-ty residents;

-5-

6

resources, rewards, and risks are sharedamong all partners;

the established roles and responsibilities arebased on each partner's particular capacitiesand resources;

the partnership is built on membership pari-ty that acknowledges and respects theexpertise and experience of each communitypartner, faculty member, and staff partici-pant;

there are sufficient benefits (short or long-term) to each partner to justify the costs,level of effort, and potential risks of partici-pation;

a the members of the partnership have ashared vision that is built on genuine excite-ment and passion for the issues at hand;

there is a system of accountability that cov-ers responsibility for carrying out jointlydetermined plans, ensuring that high-qualitywork is produced; and

a the members of the partnership are commit-ted to ensuring that each partnership mem-ber benefits from his or her participation.

This brochure highlights thethree issues community partners

believe must be fully addressed:

the importance of follow-through forbuilding sustainable partnerships;

how community partners weigh the costsand benefits of partnering withan institution of higher education; and

the influence of parity on communitymembers' attitudes toward theircampus partners.

-6-

7

THE COSTS ANDBENEFITS OF

PARTNERING

For community partners, there are risksin working with institutions of highereducation, and therefore, communitypartners carefully weigh the ratio ofbenefits to risks and costs in deciding toenter into, or continue in, a community/campus partnership.

WHAT DO COMMUNITY PARTNERS PERCEIVE

AS THE BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY/CAMPUS

PARTNERSHIPS?

Community partners suggest that partnershipswith colleges and universities provide a rangeof benefits to their organizations, including thefollowing:

further advancement of the communityorganization's mission;

new perspectives and insights sparked byinteraction with students, faculty members,and other campus partners;

access to knowledge and research oncampus, and from campus partners;

a expanded resource base;

grant opportunities;

credibility for their own efforts among theother benefits of affiliating with an institu-tion of higher education; and

exposure to the possibility of higher educa-tion (through interaction with students andcampuses).

Community partners also noted that partner-ships with colleges and universities provide arange of benefits to the partnering institutionsof higher education and briefly identified thefollowing:

-7-

8

further advancement of a campus's civicmission;

growth in student understanding andpotential for informed citizenship;

opportunities to learn new skills and acquirenew tools; and

in the long run, increased civic action bystudents as they become adults.

WHAT DO COMMUNITY PARTNERS PERCEIVE

TO BE THE RISKS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH COMMUNITY/CAMPUS PARTNERSHIPS?

One risk is a sense that the community partneris lending its credibility within a community tothe campus. In addition, given very scarce orga-nizational resources of staff and time, takingtime to do community engagement work withone partner puts at-risk the possibility of losingother partners or opportunities. The summitparticipants identified other, more direct coststo their organizations including:

the time it takes to create work, supervisestudent volunteers, or participate inresearch;

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

time lost that could be spent working withother constituencies (a board, donors, orother partners);

loss of organizational identity andprivacy; and

the "irritation factor," when organizationalstaff members are not treated as experts andpeers by campus partners and students, andwhen parity is not demonstrated in the waythings are planned and decisions are made.

-8-

I

9

WHAT ARE THE MEDIATING FACTORS THAT

INFLUENCE COMMUNITY PARTNERS' ONGOING

PARTICIPATION IN A COMMUNITY/CAMPUS

COLLABORATION?

The following mediating factors were identifiedby community partners as strongly influencingtheir decisions to enter a partnership, or remainwith it.

Established infrastructure. The campusdemonstrates its commitment to communityengagement work through its infrastructure,such as the presence of a coordinating entity,and sufficient staffing to handle the scopeand scale of the community engagementwork.

Administrative buy-in and support. Thelevel of sustained administrative interestand visible leadership in communityengagement.

History of town/gown relationship. Anassessment of the quality of prior experiencesin working with the local higher educationcommunity.

Trust and accountability. Whether or notpartners have discussed and begun to workthrough issues of mutual trust and ongoingaccountability.

Clear goals and expectations. Clear expec-tations about who will prepare students (andfaculty members) for community engage-ment activities.

These mediating factors are based on four mainquestions community partners consider as theyweigh the benefits and costs of their organiza-tion's participation in community/campus part-nerships:

How well does this community engagementalign with broader goals for partnering withcampuses?

-9-

1 0

To what extent will community engagementactivities contribute to achieving an organi-zation's mission, or improving outcomes forthe constituencies to whom the organizationholds itself accountable?

What is the risk or potential harm ofengagement, in terms of an organization'scredibility, ability to produce high-qualityservices and products, and its ability tomaintain respectful and trusting relation-ships with community residents?

What are the actual and opportunity costs ofparticipation in terms of time, money, redi-rected staff resources and foregone relation-ships, activities, and opportunities?

Community partners also consider other goalsregarding campus engagement, including:

increasing the number of community resi-dents who attend the partner university orcollege;

raising the expectations and exposure ofneighborhood residents to the idea that theycan attend and succeed in college;

increasing community capacity to addressa particular issue at the systemic or structurallevel, including issues such as K-12 educa-tion, economic development, housing andhomelessness, and small business develop-ment; and

achieving outcomes that contribute to anorganization's ability to meet its mission,implement its programs, and deliver productsand services.

These goals are broader than the outcomes bywhich community/campus partnerships are usu-ally assessed (for example, the completion of acertain number of service hours). (See thefull report on CIC's website, www.cic.edu, foradditional information on this issue.)

-10-

1 1

Community partners created a list ofcommon organizational resources

and limitations that need to be kept inmind by campus personnel when part-nering with community organizations:

Capacities vary among community partners,and their resources are often stretched verythin.

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 communi-ty characteristics.

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 partnersin 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.

12

OF PARITY

For community partners, issues ofparityactual and perceivedarealways part of a partnership, even ifthey are not addressed overtly.Community partners particularly valuecampus partners who recognize andaddress these issues.

Community partners particularly value campuspartners who are willing and able to discussissues of parity and to prepare students with anunderstanding of how these issues play out increating and improving community conditions.Partners who understand these issues typicallydemonstrate an understanding of communities'strengths and assets, not just their needs. Theyalso tend to value their interactions with com-munity organizations, leaders and residents,and thus interact in respectful and equitableways. Community partners suggest that theseperspectives and actions are more likely to leadto successful community outcomes, and thustip the ratio of benefits and costs towardcommunity benefit.

WHAT ARE THE INDICATORS OF PARITY?

Parity between campus and communityparticipants is evidenced when:

campus and community partners are interest-ed in creating long-term relationships to pro-duce meaningful change in community out-comes;

there are processes and staff that distributeauthority and funds across community andcampus partners;

there are issue or advocacy alliances, includ-ing the willingness of a campus to "step-up"in settings other than the partnership, for

-12-

13

example, at city council or before a leader-ship group, in support of a communitydriven agenda; and

there is a welcoming of community partnersonto campus in roles normally reserved forfaculty members, such as co-teaching, cur-riculum design, or in the implementation offaculty development.

WHICH COMMON PRACTICES INDICATE A

LACK OF PARITY?

The summit participants identified a number ofcommon practices in community/campus part-nerships that reveal a lack of parity betweenthe institution of higher education and thecommunity partner. When the following prac-tices are present, community partners often canfeel used, and partner relationships can becomestrained:

higher education institutions receive fundingor scholarship opportunities based on theirlocation in economically distressed oroppressed communities, without sharingthose resources or using them to directlybenefit the people behind the data;

students are consistently assigned to "tour" aneighborhood, or are otherwise offered acommunity as a laboratory for their owngrowth, without significant preparation andan understanding of context;

faculty members structure communityengagements without first assessing a com-munity's interests and needs, send largenumbers of students on short notice, or oth-erwise fail to plan with community represen-tatives or partners;

community and campus partners do not dis-cuss the particulars of the shared accounta-bility needed to achieve the partnership'sgoals, resulting in a collaboration that over-burdens particular members of the partner-ship; and

-13-

14

a higher education institution takes a posi-tion directly counter to a community's statedinterests, without informing or engagingcommunity partners about the position.

The summit participants suggest that thepractices mentioned above send the followingmessages:

campus partners have not taken the time tounderstand how community organizations orprocesses work, and are distanced from com-munity residents;

when push comes to shove, student andcampus needs appear to take precedenceover community needs;

the campus doesn't respect its communitypartners or the work they do; and

the engagement effort is for showperhapsto meet mandated requirementsor forpublic relations purposes, but is not a gen-uine effort at engagement or communitybetterment.

-14-

15

RECOMMENDATIONS

AND IMPLICATIONS FORPRACTICE AND POLICY

Both the institution of higher education andthe community partner are responsible for nur-turing the conditions that lead to the develop-ment of a good partnership. Two central themesemerged from the summit:

m Good partnerships are created and sustainedover time, through the cumulative effects ofeven the most routine interactions and out-comes. In this instance, the devil really is inthe details.

m Community partners hold themselves equal-ly accountable to institutions of higher edu-cation for nurturing the conditions that leadto the development of a good partnership.

Drawing on the summit participants' cumula-tive experiences with a broad range of commu-nity/campus partnerships, the following sevenrecommendations are offered to institutions ofhigher education and community partnersinterested in strengthening their partnerships.

1) Allot time for relationship building earlyon, and as an ongoing part of communityengagement work. Effective, sustainable,and successful partnerships require trust andcohesion among their members, clear goalsand objectives, effective communication,and parity among partners. Achieving thisrequires a purposeful, concerted effort, basedon the joint development of a set of keyprinciples around which the partnershiprevolves. Before any activities begin, timeshould be spent by all partners getting toknow each other, building trust, clarifyingexpectations, creating effective communica-tion systems, and clarifying the contributionseach partner will make to the effort. Trust is

-15-

16

often built through the creation of a "partici-pative culture" whereby considerable timeand resources are devoted to enlarging theskills, knowledge, and responsibilities ofpartnership members.

2) Learn how to talk together about racial,ethnic, arul economic inequalities and theircauses with candor, and incorporate thosediscussions into community/campus part-nership-building work. It is important toaddress these issues and go beyond superficialunderstandings or assumptions about howthey play out in community/campus partner-ships. Lack of understanding, and lack ofcandid discussion, can lead to inappropriateor disrespectful planning and implementa-tion, ill-informed strategies, and can exacer-bate poor town/gown relationships. On theother hand, ongoing, skillfully facilitated,frank discussion of understandings buildstrust, provides learning opportunities forcommunity and campus partners, includingstudents, and has been a starting point forbridging traditional institutional and com-Munity divides.

3) Identify the underlying reasons for estab-lishing or developing community/campuspartnerships. While partnerships betweencommunity-based organizations and theirlocal institutions of higher education areformed for a variety of reasons, there oftenremain many underlying goals and implicitintentions that are never brought to thefore. Because hidden agendas seem to breedmistrust, these underlying, implicit inten-tions (for example, improving town/gownrelationships) need to be explicated and dis-cussed in order for the partnership toachieve its full potential. The trust that isbuilt among the partnership members canserve as the glue that will keep the partner-ship together during inevitable personnel

-16-

17

changes, partnership goal realignments, andfunding challenges.

4) Understand the organizational contexts inwhich all partnership members work.Community-based organizations and institu-tions of higher education often operate ondifferent sets of norms when engaging incampus/community partnerships. For exam-ple, community partners may place highvalue on solidarity, community, equality,freedom, justice, individual dignity, respectfor differences, civility, and/or politicaldemocracy. Colleges and universities placehigh value on academic integrity and legiti-macy, educational value, knowledge produc-tion and dissemination, individual expertiseand specialization, peer-review and critique,and academic freedom. Understanding whenrespective values are in synch or in conflicthelps to create a foundation for establishingmutually determined goals. Successful com-munity/campus partnerships develop anunderstanding of the expectations, norms,culture, and traditions of various organiza-tions. An understanding of each other's cul-tures can help ensure the establishment ofrealistic expectations and effective strategiesfor all involved.

5) Ensure fairness in the exchange ofresources among partnership members.Along with receiving benefits from thepartnership, each member of the communi-ty/campus partnership should have some-thing to offer to the other partnership mem-bers. Partnerships in which members givemuch but receive little in return are lesslikely to be successful. The resources that areto be shared and exchanged should be dis-cussed and agreed upon at the goal-settingstage, in order to ensure that everyone isclear on what each partnership member willoffer and receive.

-1 7-

18

6) Colleges and universities can invite com-munity partners onto campus so they canshare their expertise with faculty and stu-dents. Campuses that encourage communitypartners to share in the role of "expert" canenrich academic offerings and be models ofparity. Community partners can be asked toteach in traditional classes as well as classesfocused on community engagement activitiesto help address some of the barriers betweencampus and community partners.

7) Be meticulous about the details. It isimportant to keep in mind that all the sys-tems necessary for effective community/cam-pus partnershipspreparing faculty membersand students for community engagementwork; attending to issues of privilege, parity,and accountability; and setting standards forquality and successneed to be put in placebefore community engagement activitiesbegin. Creative uses of the resources andopportunities that campus/communitypartners make available need to be exploredin ways that help challenge entrenchedassumptions and feelings of the partnershipmembers. The success of the partnershipshould periodically be assessed from a varietyof perspectives, including outcomes foreach partner and to the satisfaction of eachpartner. Finally, all partners need to followthrough on their promises, and should agreeto adhere to high standards of performance.

-18-

19

COMMUNITYSUMMITPARTICIPANTS

SEPTEMBER 27-28, 2002WASHINGTON, DC

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

Ernie Braganza, Washington County Officeon Youth, Abingdon, VA. Higher educationpartner: Emory & Henry College

Doris Bridgeman, United Way of the CapitalArea, Inc., Jackson, MS. Higher educationpartner: Tougaloo College

Linda Brooks, Town of Standish, Standish,ME. Higher education partner: SaintJoseph's College of Maine

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

James Clause II, North Dade CommunityCouncil, Carol City, FL. Higher educationpartner: Saint Thomas University

Terry Cuson, North Dade Regional Chamberof Commerce, Miami, FL. Higher educationpartner: Saint Thomas University

Sue De Vries, Garfield DevelopmentCorporation, Grand Rapids, MI. Highereducation partner: Calvin College

Shirley Gibson, North Dade CommunityCouncil, Miami, FL. Higher educationpartner: Saint Thomas University

-19-

cont'd next page

20

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

Linda Midgett, People Incorporated ofSouthwest Virginia, Abingdon, VA. Highereducation partner: Emory & Henry College

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

Dennis Nordmoe, All Saints NeighborhoodCenter, Detroit, MI. Higher educationpartner: Madonna University

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

Ellen Ridley-Hooper, Food & FellowshipsInc., Scarborough, ME. Higher educationpartner: Saint Joseph's College of Maine

Carol Peterson, Longfellow/Seward HealthySeniors Project, Minneapolis, MN. Highereducation partner: Augsburg College

Shakura Sabur, East End NeighborhoodForum, Pittsburgh, PA. Higher educationpartner: Chatham College

Stan Slessor, Waverly-Shell Rock SchoolDistrict, Waverly, IA. Higher educationpartner: Wartburg College

Deyni Ventura, Garfield DevelopmentCorporation, Grand Rapids, MI. Highereducation partner: Calvin College

-20-

21

ENGAGINGCOMMUNITIES ANDCAMPUSES: PARTICIPANTS

Augsburg College (MN) and Project for Pride in Living,Cedar Cultural Center, Our Saviour's Center, CedarRiverside School, Brian Coyle Community Center,Habitat for Humanity, Friends of the Mississippi River,Youth Farm and Market Project, In the Heart of theBeast, Longfellow/Seward Healthy Seniors Project,and San Miguel School

Bates College (ME) and LA Excels

Calvin College (MI) and Grand Rapids Area Center forEcumenism and Garfield Development Corporation

Chatham College (PA) and Communities in Schools,Conservation Consultants, Inc., the East EndNeighborhood Forum, and Global ConnectionsPittsbiligh

Emory & Henry College (VA) and Washington CountySchools, People Incorporated of Southwest Virginia,Washington County Office on Youth, HighlandsCommunity Services, and Damascus Town Council

Loyola University New Orleans (LA) and CatholicCharities, Volunteers for America, Junior Achievement,Association for Retarded Citizens of Greater NewOrleans (ARC), Help One Student to Succeed (HOST),and Benjamin Banneker Elementary School

Madonna University (MI) and All Saints NeighborhoodCenter

Mars Hill College (NC) and the North Carolina JuvenileEvaluation Center, Hospitality House of Asheville, and theRichard L Hoffman Foundation, Inc.

Otterbein College (OH) and the Westerville AreaChamber of Commerce, Communities In School, FirstLink, Columbus Foundation, Columbus City Schools,Westerville Schools, and the City of Columbus

Saint Joseph's College (ME) and Crooked RiverElementary School, Windham Family Resource Center,and the City of Standish

St. Thomas University (FL), Florida Memorial College,and the Campus and Community Alliance for NorthDade

Tougaloo College (MS) and United Way of the CapitalArea, Inc., Tougaloo Community Civic League, JacksonPublic Schools, Tougaloo Community Center, the HindsCounty Mental Health Commission, and theInternational Association of Machinists Center forAdministering Rehabilitation and Employment Services(IAM CARES)

Wartburg College (IA) and Bartels Lutheran RetirementCommunity, Waverly-Shell Rock School District, andBremwood Lutheran Children's Home

-21-

22BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ADDITIONALRESOURCES

The following resources are suggestedfor further exploration of the issuespresented in this brochure:

Auspos, Partricia, Prudence Brown, RobertChaskin, Karen Fulbright-Anderson, RalphHamilton and Anne C. Kublish. Voices Fromthe Field II: Reflections on ComprehensiveCommunity Change. Washington, DC: TheAspen Institute, 2002. This book is the resultof many roundtable meetings with leaders inthe community-based social change movement.The authors concentrate on a specific approachto community-based reform: ComprehensiveCommunity Initiatives (CCI's). They offer athorough discussion of the potential power ofsuch an approach to create change in a strug-gling community. They provide suggestions formaking CCIs effective, and offer criticism ofsome current iterations. Their reasoning aboutthe importance of this kind of cooperativesocial movement could be very helpful for peo-ple beginning to explore the option of commu-nity service as a way to positively affect theircommunity.

Callahan, Mary Mack. The IntentionalCommunity: Colleges and CommunityGroups Helping Low-Income Youth Preparefor College. Washington, DC: Council ofIndependent Colleges, 1999. This documentprovides a blueprint for the development ofhighly effective partnerships between institu-tions of higher education and communityorganizations, and is based on findings from theCollege/Community Partnership Program,jointly administered by the Council ofIndependent Colleges and Scholarship America(formerly, the Citizens' Scholarship Foundationof America). The national program helped toprepare low-income youth for a postsecondary

-22-

23

education. The publication identifies successfulstrategies employed as well as suggestions forwhat to avoid. It also identifies structural char-acteristics and process issues associated with thecreation of pre-college academic support pro-grams, and concludes with recommendationsfor policy.

Chaskin, Robert, Editor. Building CommunityCapacity. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter,2001. This book offers a framework for under-standing the different elements of communitystructure and processes that facilitate collabora-tions among local institutions, organizations,and community residents. It provides usefulinformation for identifying ways to joincommunity-based change strategies.

Chavez, Vivian, Bonnie Duran, Quinton E.Baker, Magdalena M. Avila, and NinaWallerstein. "The Dance of Race andPrivilege in Community Based ParticipatoryResearch." In Mink ler, M. and NinaWallerstein. Community-Based ParticipatoryResearch for Health. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, 2003. This chapter provides the-oretical and practical perspectives on the issueof power and privilege in campus/communitycollaborations, especially in relation to race andculture. The chapter highlights the spoken andunspoken issues that determine the powernorms and permeate the collaboration. A set ofrecommendations for research and practice areoffered.

Ciofalo, Andrew. Perspectives on ExperientialLearning: A Guide to Internship Managementfor Educators and Professionals. Melbourne,FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1992. Thiscollection of papers presents various perspec-tives about internships for college students.Many of the articles provide suggestions forimplementing and improving existing programs.Most articles are directed at the studentsand university professionals involved in the

-23-

internship program, but several articles directlyaddress issues faced by those on the communityside. This book offers a well-rounded discussionof many issues faced by those involved in com-munity service projects.

Cone, Dick and Paul Parte. "When Campusand Community Collide: Campus-CommunityPartnerships from a Community Perspective."Journal of Public Affairs, vol. VI, 2002. Inthis article the authors create a fictional rela-tionship between a community group and anearby university in order to provide a venuefor describing the variety of experiences theyhave had while implementing several commu-nity service projects. They present this compos-ite view of experiences through (fictional)community voices. Although this presentationis not a traditional academic one, the authorssucceed in capturing a variety of viewpointsand challenges from the community perspectivethat they have noted through years of engage-ment in community-based research.

Council of Independent Colleges. EngagingCommunities and Campuses: Working Paper.Washington, DC: Council of IndependentColleges. 1999. Website: www.cic.edu/caphe/grants/workingpaper2.pdf. The EngagingCommunities and Campuses program focuseson the ways that private colleges and universi-ties engage with off-campus communities toboth enhance student learning and to simulta-neously assist community organizations and res-idents meet their own needs. The project isgrounded in the premise that to prepare stu-dents for a lifetime of contribution to society,colleges must enable students to connect withthe world beyond the campusand the inter-ests of those communitieswhile still enrolledin an educational program. The document out-lines the issues addressed through the initiative,setting forth the conceptual framework thatguides the program.

-24-

25

Gilliard, Michelle D. Guest Editor."Independent Institutions and Their UrbanMissions." Metropolitan Universities: AnInternational Forum. vol. 13, no. 1, January2002. This edition of the journal is dedicatedto the Council of Independent College'sImplementing Urban Missions program, andcontains articles written by each of the eightinstitutions and their community organizationpartners, describing and analyzing key featuresof their respective projects. Additional articlesinclude, "Private and Public Institutional Viewsof Civic Engagement and the Urban Mission,"by Barbara Holland, and "Advisory Boardsand Higher Education's Urban Mission: FourModels," by Marcia Marker Feld. Ms. Hollandand Ms. Feld served as the program's evaluatorand consultant, respectively.

Harkavy, Ira. "School-Community-UniversityPartnerships: Effectively IntegratingCommunity Building and Education Reform."University and Community Schools. vol. 6,no. 1-2, Fall-Winter, 1999. This paper, whichwas presented at a conference on community-building in 1998, provides historical back-ground for connections among communities,schools, and universities. Beginning with late19th century reforms, Harkavy follows variousmovements in which efforts were made to cre-ate bridges among these three potential part-ners. He highlights successes from the past and.draws wisdom from their examples. Using infor-mation gleaned from the past, he ends withsuggestions for making successful school-com-munity-university partnerships.

Leiderman, Sally, Andrew Furco,Jennifer Zapf, and Megan Goss. BuildingPartnerships with College Campuses:Community Perspectives, Online Monograph.Washington, DC: Council of IndependentColleges. 2003. Website: www.cic.edu.Through the evaluation of the Council ofIndependent College's Engaging Communitiesand Campuses grant program, 21 community

-25-

26

leaders from around the country gatheredtogether in Washington, DC to discuss the cre-ation and maintenance of partnerships betweencommunity organizations and institutions ofhigher education. This online monographdescribes the meeting's findings.

Maguire, J. and Sally Leiderman.15 Tools for Creating Healthy, ProductiveInterracial/Multicultural Communities.Claremont, CA: The Institute for DemocraticRenewal and The Project Change Anti-Racial Initiative, 1998. This brief guide sum-marizes core lessons about working collabora-tively to improve community well-being withexplicit attention to issues of race, power, andprivilege. It is based on the experiences of 14nationally respected community-based organi-zations that have been doing this work formany years. The guide is intended as a primerfor newly forming collaborations, or for longer-standing collaborations ready to turn to issuesof race in their work. The guide is available insix languages: English, Spanish, Chinese,Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Korean, which makesit particularly useful in communities withmulti-lingual populations.

Schmidt, Adeny and Matthew A. Robby."What's the Value of Service-Learning tothe Community?" Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, Fall 2002.This article represents a kind of researchnot often seen in the field: research thataddresses the effects of service learning uponits recipients. Specifically, it provides the resultsof a tutoring program on a group of elementaryschool children.

Sigmon, Robert L. Journey to Service-Learning: Experiences from IndependentLiberal Arts Colleges and Universities.Washington, DC: Council of IndependentColleges, 1996. Combining theory withpractice, and drawing on the work andexperiences of nearly 200 private liberal artscolleges and universities, this book offers

-26-

suggestions and strategies for faculty andadministrators seeking to develop, structure,and sustain programs in service learning.

Snyder, Ed. "Making the Connection: Collegeand Community." in Terry Pickeral andKaren Peters (Eds.) Campus CommunityCollaborations: Examples & Resources forCommunity Colleges. Mesa, Arizona:Campus Compact National Center forCommunity Colleges, September 1996.Provides an explanation for how one communi-ty college (College of Lake County, Illinois)encourages and promotes community involve-ment in its service learning program. Offerssome practical strategies for creating a positiverelationship with the community.

Stoecker, Randy. "Practices and Challengesof Community-Based Research." Journal ofPublic Affairs. vol. VI, 2002. Provides a dis-cussion of community-based research.Highlights the advantage of this approach toservice for the community partners, since theyare often given a strong voice in creating thetopics of research.

Sullivan, Marianne, Stella Chao, CarolAllen, Ahoua Kone., Martine Pierre-Louis,and James Krieger. "Community-ResearcherPartnerships: Perspectives from the Field."In Mink ler, M. and Nina Wallerstein.Community-Based Participatory Research forHealth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,2003. This chapter presents the results of astudy of the Seattle Partners for HealthyCommunities, which sought to understandwhat the community members consider to bethe strengths and weaknesses of community-researcher partnerships. The findings suggestthat the term "community" is used differentlyby institutional and community partners, thatthe community members must have parity inthe decision-making process in order for thepartnership to succeed in its goals, and thatissues of race, ethnicity, and culture must beaddressed.

-27-

28

:

COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT

COLLEGES (CIC)/CONSORTIUM FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF PRIVATE HIGHER

EDUCATION (CAPHE)

The Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) isan association of more than 500 independentcolleges and universities that work together tostrengthen college and university leadership,sustain high-quality education, and enhanceprivate higher education's contributions to soci-ety. To fulfill this mission, CIC provides itsmembers with skills', tools, and knowledge thataddress aspects of leadership, financial manage-ment and performance, academic quality, andinstitutional visibility. The Consortium for theAdvancement of Private Higher Education(CAPHE) is a grantmaking unit of CIC thatassists corporations and foundations in stimu-lating reform in private colleges and universi-ties for the benefit of higher education andsociety. Over the years, CAPHE has adminis-tered more than $17 million in grants toapproximately 200 independent colleges anduniversities nationwide for more than 30 corpo-rations and foundations. CAPHE grants havefocused on issues of costs and pricing, teachingand learning, diversity, technology, teacherpreparation, and institutional planning, amongother topics. Leadership for the EngagingCommunities and Campuses grant program wasprovided by Michelle D. Gilliard, executivedirector, CAPHE; Jacqueline Skinner, associatedirector, CAPHE; and Stephen Gibson, proj-ects coordinator, CIC.

-28-

2 9

SALLY LEIDERMAN

Sally Leiderman is president of the Center forAssessment and Policy Development (CAPD),an evaluation and social policy organization,based near Philadelphia. The organizationworks nationally to support foundations, com-munities, and institutions working to improveoutcomes for children, families, and neighbor-hoods, in the areas of education, family andchild well-being, adolescent pregnancy and pre-vention, anti-racism work, leadership, and civicengagement. Ms. Leiderman provides policyand evaluation support to several foundationsand communities involved in comprehensivecommunity building efforts and leadershipdevelopment. CAPD's recent publicationsinclude A Community Builder's Toolkit: 15 Toolsfor Creating Healthy, Productive Interracial!Multicultural Communities, with the Institute forDemocratic Renewal and Project Change Anti-Racism Program; and Training for Racial Equityand Inclusion: A Guide to Selected Programs, withthe Alliance for Conflict Transformation, theAspen Institute Roundtable on ComprehensiveCommunity Initiatives, and Project Change.CAPD is also currently developing a toolbagthat communities can use to assess their ownprogress toward anti-racism and inclusion goals,in partnership with NABRE, a program of theJoint Center on Political and EconomicStudies. For more information, please seewww.capd.org.

ANDREW FURCO

Andrew Furco is director of the Service-Learning Research & Development Center atthe University of California-Berkeley, where heserves on the Graduate School of Educationfaculty. His publications include the books,

-29-

30

Service-Learning: The Essence of the Pedagogyand Service-Learning through a Multidiscipli-naryLens, which he co-edited with Shelley Billig.His articles have appeared in the Journal ofAdolesence, Journal of Public Affairs, The Journalof Cooperative Education, and Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service-Learning. He has presentedpapers on service-learning, civic engagement,educational reform, and experiential learning atmore than 100 conferences and institutes inthe United States and abroad. He currentlyserves as a member of the National ReviewBoard for the Scholarship of Engagement, theAmerican Association for Higher EducationService-Learning Consulting Corps, and theNational Service-Learning Partnership Board ofDirectors.

JENNIFER ZAPF

Jennifer Zapf is an evaluator with more thanten years of experience conducting evaluations,research, and strategic planning for public andnonprofit organizations. Dr. Zapf received aMasters of Arts from Stanford University inHigher Education Administration, Research,and Policy and a Ph.D. in EducationalEvaluation from the University of Virginia. Asboth a practitioner and applied researcher,she has worked with foundations, public insti-tutions, collaboratives, and community stake-holders on improving the life chances of chil-dren and families at risk for poor educational,health, and life outcomes. At the Center forAssessment and Policy Development, Dr. Zapfhas worked on assessments of national, state,and community-based initiatives. Her recentwork includes two national projects that fundhigher education institutional collaboratives topromote civic understanding and participation.She also serves as a national evaluation coachand trainer for AmeriCorps, Learn and ServeAmerica, and National Senior Service Corpsprograms throughout the United States.

-30-

31

MEGAN GossMegan Goss is a doctoral student in theDepartment of Education at UC Berkeley and agraduate student researcher in Berkeley'sService-Learning Research and DevelopmentCenter. Her research interests include issues ofliteracy as a cultural activity, educationalreform, and alternative education options with-in the public school setting. Ms. Goss hastaught in grades K-5 and has a reading special-ist's credential from Berkeley.

-31-

32

THE COUNCIL OFINDEPENDENT COLLEGES

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

3 3

4.141414Ir Yitrflh

Z

11..1.-!<11,11

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (0ERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ERICWaco! holm 011omtiien Certin

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)"form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes ofdocuments from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a"Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may bereproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either"Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (1/2003)