Campus Community Collaborations
Examples & Resources for Community Colleges

Campus-community collaborations have been discussed, planned, and implemented in almost all higher-education institutions. However, the ideas, structures, cultures, and reward systems for developing such partnerships vary by campus and community. Our examination of campus-community collaborations identifies a diversity of models:

• from ad hoc to integrated,
• from academic course "add-ons" to integral components of undergraduate and graduate programs,
• from single academic department to campuswide partnerships,
• from student-focused to community-focused,
• from little or no institutional support to fully developed mainstream structures, and
• from viewing the community as deficient (something to be fixed by higher education) to recognizing its assets and ability to improve from within (with higher education as a salient partner).

We do not believe that one model fits all; however, we do believe there are particular components and processes that lend themselves to long-term integrated campus-community collaborations. This essay offers a rationale for collaborations, identifies assets higher education brings to the community, identifies potential barriers and facilitators for collaboration, and suggests that service-learning practices enhance campus-community collaborations.

While this resource is written for, and the majority of the research comes from, two-year institutions, we believe the information has application to all school-based partnerships from kindergarten through Ph.D.

Campus-community collaborations are not new; in fact, they have been around as long as higher-education institutions have existed in the United States. Whether the partner represents a religious organization, not-for-profit agency, social institution, public agency, education institution, business and industry, or the community at large, colleges and universities have developed partnerships designed along a continuum, from responding to specific student academic or vocational training to communitywide initiatives.

According to the National Network for Collaboration, " . . . a collaboration is a process of participation through which people, groups, and organizations work together on the strengths of the community to achieve desired results."

In a recent interview, Christiansen (1996) said " . . . it is easier to do things yourself initially than to share with others. Further, we are not placed in environments many times where we are encouraged to share. As we develop ideas, one of the major challenges is to be convinced and to convince our constituency that our investment of time, energy, and talent toward sharing and collaborating is in everybodyÌs best interest."

So why do we consider, develop, and implement partnerships if they are so difficult? We can begin to answer this question by looking at the symbiotic nature of collaborations. A symbiotic relationship denotes a mutual dependence between unlike organisms (Hawley, 1950). That is, itÌs a relationship where each oneÌs work benefits the otherÌs. This leads us to the value-added nature of collaborations. Value-added refers to enhancements to oneÌs own work and/or the work of the collaboration that otherwise would not be possible.

Therefore, collaborations allow independent entities to reach out beyond their own capacities as they meet their organizational objectives, while enhancing their contribution to collaborative outcomes.

We also recognize that the social problems campus-community collaborations address are complex and require multiple focuses and strategies. Any one organization cannot, through its singular focus, solve the majority of problems they address.

Lawson and Hooper-Briar (1994) introduce the concept of social morbidity in which our society fails to identify, steward, and enforce the rights of children, youth, and families. Exacerbating the plague is ". . . neglecting our collective responsibilities, the systems we have designed . . . are not achieving their goals" (p. 9).

Their suggestion is to think differently about our collective responsibilities and service systems . . . and accept shared responsibility for solutions . . . by themselves they (agencies) have been insufficient means to meet the challenges of the new morbidity. Heretofore separate, even competing, staff and their systems now must collaborate, seeking to integrate their services. By expanding partnerships, new models for service system design and implementation are appearing in neighborhoods, communities and schools (p. 9-10).

The rationale, therefore, to establish campus-community collaborations is twofold: (1) They add value to each partner and the collaboration, and (2) they are needed to solve our complex social problems.

Now that we have established that campus-community collaborations are a desirable method of contributing to the reduction of social problems, let us now turn our attention to this question: What does higher education bring to community collaborations?

Some of the answers to what higher education contributes to community collaborations can be found in the succeeding essays in this sourcebook. Readers will examine projects and programs that range from students tutoring at-risk youth to paraprofessional student contributions, to helping professions, to communitywide business/industry collaborations utilizing multiple capacities of postsecondary institutions.

Jody Kretzmann (1996) identifies higher education institutions as "treasure chests full of community-building materials." He states that if colleges are serious about community partnerships, they need to learn how to identify their assets, make them available to the community and then to " . . . sit down with some community folk and think about this community-building material."

These college assets include:

• space for community meetings
• use of technology and equipment
• research capacity
• distance learning
• training
• student co-curricular service activities as individuals, associated students athletic teams, and other groups
• disciplinary and content experts
• lifelong learning programs
• alumni association
• the campus physical environment
• leadership

Certainly this list is not exhaustive but attempts to identify some of the less obvious assets that exist on college campuses. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) introduce us to ways to find and use the gifts and talents of individuals, as well as the assets of higher education institutions.

In every community college, the members of the faculty and the administrative staff are a collection of highly trained and specialized adults whose skills and knowledge can make significant contributions to the efforts of local organizations involved in community development. Moreover, . . . the local community college can also become the focal point for mobilizing the special talents and energy of students (p.227).

The authors also provide methods for mapping campus and community assets, discovering potential partners, and building productive relationships between community colleges and the community. This process recognizes the complex constellation of resources available on college campuses.

In summary, colleges have much to offer to community partners and, in turn, have much to gain from collaborations. It is also important to realize that there are barriers that inhibit collaborations, as well as facilitators leading to mutually beneficial partnerships.

In their monograph, Expanding Partnerships: Involving Colleges and Universities in Interprofessional Collaboration and Service Integration, Lawson and Hooper-Briar (1994) identify "potential barriers" and "potential facilitators" for campus-community collaborations. We have reprinted their lists at the end of this essay. A review of these lists encourages us to take into account those components of partnerships that may prohibit or reduce effective collaborations, as well as those that assist in developing collaborations. We caution you to not merely reflect on those circumstances and organizations that align on the facilitator side and disregard those defined as barriers. A better strategy, we suggest, is to consider those individuals and organizations that can contribute to effective collaborations, recognizing potential barriers and developing processes by which to overcome them. If we do this, we will increase the number of potential partners and, more important, provide high-quality opportunities for reticent individuals and organizations to learn how to develop symbiotic relationships.

Now that we have identified potential barriers and facilitators, let us turn our attention to a specific strategy that builds collaborations from a reciprocal service point of view.

Service-learning is a strategy to develop campus-community collaborations that (1) correspond to the rationale expressed earlier in this essay, (2) utilize strategies encouraged by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) and others, (3) reduce barriers, (4) enhance facilitators, and (5) build on campus-community processes that provide mutual benefit.

Service-learning is both a philosophy and a teaching method. According to the Corporation for National Service (1990), service-learning is a method by which students learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences. These experiences are designed to meet actual community needs and are integrated into the studentsÌ academic curriculum through structured reflection.

Among of the service-learning standards developed by the Association for Service-Learning in Education Reform (Asler, 1994) are the following:

• the service students perform makes a meaningful contribution to the community, and
• service-learning connects the school and sponsoring organization and its community in new and positive ways.

Sigmon (1979) suggests that service-learning is oriented to "reciprocal learning" where both the student and the recipient of service benefit from the activity.

What is it, though, that distinguishes this method from other campus-community partnerships? Service-learning is a process by which colleges and communities work together for mutual benefit through direct student service linked to course work. It offers communities more than a mere act of service; it provides services that meet actual community needs and assists students and the college to become partners in community problem solving.

Service-learning involves the academic core of the college, which is the faculty. By aligning service with academic outcomes and community benefits, service-learning offers long-term campus-community collaborations. It establishes a habit of working together that is authentic in its contribution to both student and community. Along these lines, Honnet and Poulson (1989) note that the most effective service and learning programs in educational systems are linked to the curriculum and require that the faculty become committed to combining service and learning as a valid part of teaching. Therefore, if faculty members are invested in service-learning, the corresponding campus-community collaborations will be more integrated and have greater longevity because they are connected to the core of the institution. This also reduces the ad hoc nature of many campus-community collaborations.

Another goal of service-learning is to instill an ethic of service in students. The service-learning method of teaching is intended to facilitate a lifelong habit of serving that benefits the community over the long term. Service-learning and the development of an ethic of service moves individuals from ad hoc service delivery to participation as an active citizen in the many communities in which they may live.

Service-learning and the related reflection activities in which students engage require that the root causes of social problems be addressed. This can provide long-term community-building strategies that transform those served from client to citizen and create communities that are healthier and safer places to live.

Service-learning, from our perspective, connects many of the existing planks that link the college and the community and pulls them tightly to form a fortified bridge between these two entities. It enhances existing partnerships and develops a standard for high-quality long-term collaborations.

College-community collaborations have existed for centuries in the United States. The nature and structure of these partnerships vary by campus, community, leadership, needs, and other variables. Collaborations are necessary to solve todayÌs complex social problems, and colleges have many assets to offer toward effective solutions. This essay identifies existing barriers, as well as facilitators, to developing and sustaining campus-community collaborations.

Service-learning, we believe, offers unique contributions to campus-community collaborations. It (1) engages students in meaningful service that meets community needs, (2) is reciprocal, benefiting both campus and community, (3) engages faculty--the academic core of the institution, (4) encourages a lifelong ethic of service in students, and (5) provides long-term solutions to social problems. We believe the examples in this sourcebook, as well as the processes suggested in this essay, will be helpful to college faculty and administrators as they consider ways to develop and enhance campus-community collaborations.

Terry Pickeral is the Assistant Director and Coordinator of Instructional Programs for the Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. Previously he was the Director of the Washington State Campus Compact and the Western Washington University Center for Service-Learning.

Terry also is the Manager of the Corporation for National Service Learn and Serve: Higher Education Teacher Education Affinity Group. He has developed teacher education programs that integrate service-learning and collaborations with K-12 schools.

Alliance for Service-Learning in Education Reform (1994). Standards of quality for school-based and community-based service-learning. Alexandria, VA: The Close Up Foundation.

Christiansen, L. (1996). Educational partnerships with business and industry. College community collaborations: Examples and references. Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

Collaboration framework--addressing community capacity. National Network for Collaboration ... building and sustaining positive change.

Corporation for National and Community Service (1990). National and Community Service Act of 1990. Washington, D. C.

Hawley (1950). Social Ecology. New York: The Ronald Press.

Honnet, E. P., & Poulson, S. J. (1989). Principles of good practice for combining service

and learning. Wingspread Special Report. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation,

Inc.

Kretzmann, J. (1996). An interview: the role of community colleges in community- building (pending publication). Mesa, AZ: Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges.

Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a communityÌs assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.

Lawson, H. A., & Hooper-Briar, K. (1994). Expanding partnerships: Involving colleges and universities in interprofessional collaboration and service integration. Oxford, OH: The Danforth Foundation and the Institute for Educational Renewal at Miami, Ohio.

Sigmon, R. (ACTION, 1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist 8(1), 9-11.

National Center for Service-Learning.

		A Little Something for Dessert
		The Weavers Within
		Table of Contents