Community+engagement+practices,+perceived+benefits,+and+perceived+costs

**Community engagement practices, perceived benefits, and perceived costs** Marcie Simpson, Coordinator, Organizational Development and Accountability, University of Georgia [simpson@uga.edu] Lorilee Sandmann, Professor, University of Georgia [sandmann@uga.edu]



**Keywords:** Perceived costs, perceived benefits, institutional benefit, community benefit, Carnegie classification

**Track:** Theoretical or conceptual frameworks to advance research

**Format:** Research paper


 * Date & time: **Thursday 3:20-4:30
 * Location: **Salon 10

**Summary:** Findings and methodology of a quantitative study on community engagement practices, perceived costs, and perceived benefits will be presented. The population of the study is a group of exemplary community-engaged institutions – 2006 and 2008 Carnegie community-engaged classified institutions. A researcher-developed survey instrument was used to collect responses from these institutions.. The survey was designed to answer the following research questions: 1) To what extent are institutions conducting community-engagement practices? 2) What is the perceived benefit of community-engagement practices for the institution? 3) What is the perceived benefit of community-engagement practices for the community? 4) What is the perceived cost of community-engagement practices to the institution? 5) How does institutional type impact community-engagement practices? 6) What is the perceived institutional support for community engagement?

This study identifies a comprehensive list of community-engagement practices, provides data on perceived costs and benefits, and indicates supports for community engagement. The key finding was that exemplary community-engaged institutions place a high value on the benefit of community-engagement practices and conduct the practices at a high frequency without regard to the relative costs.

Major contributions of this study are twofold: the instrument as a measurement of five key variables: practice, institutional benefit, community benefit, cost, and support; and the findings for administrative decision making, benchmarking, and understanding the relationship of perceived costs, perceived benefits, and frequency of community-engagement practices.

**References:** Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the individual college or university: Five trends and their implications. //New Directions for Higher Education//, (//145//), 47-58. doi:10.1002/he.334

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Boyer, E. L. (1990). //Scholarship reconsidered//. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Community-Campus Partnership for Health (2011). Retrieved from http://www.ccph.info/

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Dubb, S. (2007). //Linking colleges to communities: Engaging the university for community development//. College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Hartley, M. (2009). Leading grassroots change in the academy. //Journal of Change Management//, //9//(3), 323-338.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Hartley, M. & Soo, D. (2009). Building democracy's university. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman, & C. C. Morphew (Eds.), //The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education// (pp. 397-407). New York, NY: Routledge.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Kallison Jr., J. M., & Cohen, P. (2010). A new compact for higher education: Funding and autonomy for reform and accountability. //Innovative Higher Education//, //35//(1), 37-49. doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9123-2

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Kezar, A. J., Chambers, T. C., & Burkhardt, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). //Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement//. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2009). //Classification: Community engagement elective classification//. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">**Please click here to access a PDF of this page:**
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 20px;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 20px;">To download materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">**Please join the conversation about this session! To do so, please click on the "Edit" tab at the upper right, scroll back down to here, and lead the comment with your name.**