Submission Requirements for Community Partnerships Micro-credential

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

Download submission requirements for Community Partnerships micro-credential

  1. Complete a brief self-assessment of your current competencies in the micro-credential area;
  2. Provide a list of recent professional development experiences in which you have participated related to the micro-credential area;
  3. Provide background on the institutional context in which you work and your role as it relates to community engagement programming and partnerships;
  4. Provide a letter of reference from an individual in a community partner organization who can speak about their work with you in a higher education community partnership capacity;
  5. Write a reflective essay, based on a set of guiding questions, in which you frame and demonstrate your competencies in campus-community partnership building;
  6. Submit annotated artifacts or materials that illustrate your experiences with and contributions to ethical and effective campus-community partnerships;
  7. Following submission of the materials above, complete a brief narrative reflecting on your own personal strengths as well as areas for personal growth related to the micro-credential area.

DEMONSTRATIVE ESSAY REQUIREMENTS

Below you will find a list of guiding questions related to the key competencies for the Community Partnerships micro-credential. These guiding questions should be used to help you reflect on your experiences and frame your demonstration of the competencies for the micro-credential area. We also provide an evaluative rubric. We encourage you to review the guiding questions and rubric before beginning your writing. If you feel unprepared to adequately respond to the range of questions provided, we encourage you to seek further trainings and resources to enhance your understanding of, and experience with, ethical and effective campus-community partnerships.

The guiding questions provided are designed to encourage you to (1) name the knowledge you bring to bear in your work, (2) describe how you carried out activities, and (3) reflect on the successes, challenges and tensions you have experienced while navigating the complex task of facilitating and supporting effective, inclusive, and equity-based community partnerships. You need not respond to every guiding question; rather, we offer the questions as prompts to stimulate your thinking around the issues they raise. When appropriate, you are encouraged to cite the relevant literature that informs your understanding of the ideas you are invoking or processes you are describing. You are also encouraged to make reference in the essay to annotated artifacts (publications, presentations, workshop outlines, curricular materials, etc.) that you may upload with the application. Your essay will be evaluated for the quality and relevance of its content and the clarity of the ideas you present.

Writing the Essay: The essay should be 2000 – 2500 words in length. Please create sub-headings in your essay for each competency area enumerated below.

Competency 1: Knowledge of self – Ability to reflect on and articulate one’s relationship to the community/communities with which one aims to partner, including attention to how similarities and differences in experience, status, or identity may shape dynamics of collaboration

Guiding questions:

  • What is your relationship to the communities with which you are partnering? What is your role in facilitating the partnership?
  • What similarities and differences in experiences and social identifications (e.g., racial, cultural/ethnic, institutional, socio-economic, gender, sexuality, ability, generational, educational, etc.) may exist among stakeholders in the partnership? In what ways might power dynamics inherent in these social differences influence and shape the role you will play in entering, developing, facilitating, and sustaining partnerships over time and across social difference?
  • What issues might you need to negotiate and monitor in the partnership to assure it is one characterized by “closeness, equity, and integrity” (Brindle et al. 2009)?

Competency 2: Knowledge of the community with which you are partnering – Ability to familiarize yourself with the community’s history and histories, its past experiences with your institution, the network of assets that promote the community’s strength and functioning, and the short-term and long-term agendas and goals of community partnership members

Guiding questions:

  • What strategies did you pursue to familiarize yourself with the community’s histories, its past experiences with your institution, and the network of assets within the community that promotes its strength and functioning?
  • What processes did you undertake to ensure an adequate and inclusive understanding of the short- and long-term agendas and goals of community stakeholders in the partnership?
  • What strategies or processes did you follow to encourage or “coach” other partnership members (e.g., students, faculty, staff, organizational stakeholders) to familiarize themselves with the community’s history(ies), assets, and agenda/goals for the partnership?

Competency 3: Ability to initiate and maintain effective partnerships – Ability to initiate and design partnerships, build collaborative relationships based on trust and mutual respect, and sustain partnerships over time

Guiding questions:

  • What were the motivations behind partnering? What were the goals that each partner entered with, and to what extent and through what processes were these goals transformed into shared outcomes?
  • What processes or strategies were utilized to design the partnership, build collaborative relations based on trust and mutual respect, and sustain the partnership over time? What was your role in each of these collaborative stages? [Note: A discussion of some of the key tasks inherent in initiating and maintaining campus-community partnerships can be found in Eddy 2010]
  • What strategies were pursued to discuss how the partnership would be governed, including how power, authority, resources, and decision-making would be shared? Who participated in this process and what was your role?

Competency 4: Ability to connect campus and community assets – Ability to understand and propose an asset-based approach to partnership development (as opposed to needs-based); ability to play a role in facilitating the mapping of community assets (local knowledge, skills, resources, organizations, and networks) to assure partnership activities build on community strengths; ability to utilize partnership language that avoids deficit-based terms (such as a needs, issues, problems, and challenges) but instead emphasizes affirmative ones (such as goals, aspirations, and vision)

Guiding questions:

  • What strategies were pursued to assure the partnership would build on the assets of the community, and what role did you play in that process?
  • How and to what extent were partnership stakeholders (faculty, students, staff, community organizations, and residents) involved in the exercise of identifying the assets that could be connected to support and achieve partnership goals and desired outcomes? What specific efforts were undertaken in this regard? [Note: a useful discussion of the principles and strategies of asset-based community engagement can be found in Hamerlinck and Plaut 2014].

Competency 5: Ability to communicate across roles and boundaries – Ability to actively listen and be open to the diverse views and voices of others as you steward campus and community stakeholders in partnership work

Guiding questions:

  • How were the voices of community stakeholders heard and incorporated in the partnership development process? Were there particular opportunities to hear the voices and ideas of under-represented residents and identity groups? What listening strategies were developed before, during, and after the partnership activities? What was your role in assuring an inclusive “listening orientation” in the partnership?
  • How was information shared with stakeholders throughout the partnership? What various forms did communication take and through what venues? In retrospect, do you feel more may have been done to ensure direct, clear, and inclusive communication?

Competency 6: Ability to involve partners in reflection and assessment – Ability to plan for and design opportunities to check in and reflect with partnership members about what is working and what may need to happen differently to ensure that partnership goals are being met and that members feel respected and valued; ability to create conditions where partnership members can candidly share input, including critical feedback; ability to assess with partnership members which goals were accomplished, which were not, and what next steps might look like.

Guiding questions:

  • How were opportunities designed for partners to check in and reflect upon their work together before, during, and after the partnership’s activities? Was this outlined in an MOU or other partnership agreement? How were check-ins moderated or facilitated? What role did you play in the reflection and assessment process? What do you feel was accomplished in these opportunities?

Competency 7: Ability to resolve conflictAbility to monitor and facilitate communication and shared work among people with different organizational and personal norms, interests, expectations, and operating practices in order to ensure the quality of relationships and validate the input and authority of each partner; ability to mediate, mitigate, or resolve conflicts as they arise to assure inclusive, collaborative participation throughout the partnership

Guiding questions:

  • Did any conflicts (big or small) arise during partnership activities? If so, among whom and with what effect(s) on the partnership? What do you believe were the sources of the conflict(s) and what factors do you believe were at play? What process or strategies were used to address the conflict(s) and work toward resolution? What principles and practices of conflict resolution were employed? What was your role in helping partners navigate conflict and work toward resolution? What did you learn through this process?

Competency 8: Desire to develop authentic relationships and participate in the ongoing life of the communityWillingness to participate and invest in the community you seek to engage (this could include making commitments to attend community meetings, frequent businesses, participate in community events and festivals, serve on organizational boards, engage in community planning processes or undertaking other activities meant to foster a more enduring level of authentic community participation); ability to participate in community life with sensitivity and care, entering as a learner, listener, and guest.

Guiding questions:

  • In what ways, if any, have you chosen to participate in the communities with whom you partner beyond your specific institutional responsibilities?  What critical or ethical commitments have informed your choices? What have you taken from your broader community involvement? Have you faced obstacles or challenges in your ability to participate more actively and authentically in the community? How are you managing those challenges?

Competency 9:  Willingness to recognize and reflect on power relations within and between stakeholders

Guiding questions:

  • As you look back at your partnership-building experience(s), how successful was it (they) in achieving its goals and desired outcomes? Can you identify any challenges or obstacles you faced in establishing a partnership characterized by closeness, equity, and integrity? In retrospect (and looking forward), is there anything you may have done (or would do) differently to address power relations and cultivate a more inclusive, equity-based partnership?

Reference Cited:

Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., & Price, M. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1–20.

Eddy, P. L. (2010). Partnerships and collaboration in higher education: AEHE. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hamerlinck, J., & Plaut, J. (2014). Asset-based community engagement in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Campus Compact.

A full list of resources on campus-community partnership building can be found on the Campus Compact website at https://compact.org/community-partnerships/.

EVALUATION RUBRIC FOR DEMONSTRATIVE ESSAY

Competency 1: Knowledge of selfawareness of how personal and professional identities may shape relationships among partners

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Little or no articulation of critical issues of self-awareness or attention to how similarities and differences in experience, status, or identity between or within stakeholder groups may shape dynamics of collaboration and role of CEP in the partnership
  • 1 – Emerging
    Able to articulate a basic understanding of critical issues of self-awareness, but with scant attention to how similarities and differences between or within stakeholder groups may shape dynamics of collaboration or the role of the CEP in the partnership
  • 2 – Good
    Able to articulate critical issues of self-awareness, including a strong understanding of how similarities and differences between or within stakeholder groups may shape dynamics of collaboration and the role of the CEP in the partnership; able to articulate specific issues that need to be addressed to assure equity and inclusion
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Able to articulate a clear and nuanced understanding of the critical issues of self-awareness in developing equity-based collaborations, including how similarities and differences between or within stakeholder groups may shape dynamics of collaboration and role of the CEP in the partnership; able to articulate specific and comprehensive strategies to monitor the partnership to assure equity and inclusion

Competency 2: Knowledge of the community with which you are partneringincluding knowledge of: (1) the community’s history(ies); (2) its past experiences with their institution; (3) the network of assets that promote the community’s strength and functioning; (4) the short-term and long-term agendas and goals of community partnership members

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Provides little or no evidence of effective strategies used to familiarize self with the community, its history(ies), network of assets, past experiences with their institution, or the short- and long-term agendas and goals of partnership members
  • 1 – Emerging
    Able to reference only a very limited number of strategies used to familiarize self with the community, its history(ies), past experiences with their institution, network of assets, or the short- and long-term agendas and goals of partnership members; minimum articulation of how such strategies were utilized more broadly to prepare university representatives participating in the partnership
  • 2 – Good
    Able to clearly articulate the strategies they pursued to familiarize themselves with the community and provides clear evidence of how such strategies and knowledge were utilized to more broadly to prepare university representatives participating in the partnership
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Able to articulate in a clear and nuanced way the strategies they pursued to familiarize themselves with the community; offers evidence of how such strategies and knowledge were utilized to prepare university representatives participating in the partnership; able to articulate a deep and thoughtful understanding of complexities in the community and in the community’s relationship to their institution and how these must be accounted for in partnership development

Competency 3: Ability to initiate and maintain effective partnershipswhere key aspects of partnership- building include: (1) knowledge of motivations behind the partnership and initial goals of each partner; (2) ability to utilize strategies for translating goals to desired outcomes; (3) strategies to assure collaborative relations are characterized by trust and mutual respect; (4) strategies to discuss and monitor how power and authority are to be shared in processes of decision-making and resource allocation; (5) consideration of strategies to support sustainability of the partnership over time

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Very limited or no discussion of key partnership strategies utilized; Little or no discussion of their role as a CEP in each of these collaborative stages
  • 1 – Emerging
     Able to articulate motivations behind partnership(s) and basic actions taken to initiate and sustain it, but provides little or inadequate evidence of how those strategies were pursued in a collaborative matter; provides little or inadequate attention to the important role of the CEP in each stage of partnership building
  • 2 – Good
    Able to articulate a broad range of collaborative partnership strategies utilized; thoughtful discussion of how those strategies were pursued in a collaborative spirit with partners; awareness and attention to the important role of the CEP in each stage
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Able to explain collaborative strategies pursued for each of the key areas of partnership building identified; offers thoughtful discussion of how those strategies were pursued in a collaborative spirit with partners, including acknowledgment of the complexities involved in such collaborations; demonstration of nuanced understanding of the important role that the CEP plays in each stage of partnership development

Competency 4: Ability to connect campus and community assets – includes ability to: (1) understand and propose an asset-based approach to partnership development; (2) play a role in facilitating the mapping of community assets (local knowledge, skills, resources, organizations, and networks); (3) utilize partnership language that avoids deficit-based terms and emphasizes affirmative ones

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Limited, inadequate, or faulty understanding of asset-based approaches to partnership; inability to identify strategies used to identify and build on community assets; continued reliance on deficit-based language or practices
  • 1 – Emerging
    Able to articulate basic understanding of asset-based approaches to partnership; able to speak of their own partnership(s) in asset-based terms but with some deficit-based understandings still present; not able to adequately demonstrate the asset-mapping or asset identification activities employed in their own partnership work; not able to adequately demonstrate how asset-based strategies, more broadly, inform their partnerships in specific ways
  • 2 – Good
    Clear understanding of asset-based approaches to partnership; able to demonstrate asset-mapping or asset-identification activities employed in their own partnership work; ability to demonstrate more broadly how asset-based strategies inform their partnership development
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Well-informed and nuanced understanding of asset-based approaches to partnership; able to demonstrate a range of asset-mapping or asset-identification activities they use in building partnerships; ability to demonstrate in a comprehensive manner how asset-based strategies inform their approach to partnerships

Competency 5: Ability to communicate across roles and boundaries – includes the ability to:  (1) incorporate the voices of community stakeholder (including the most marginalized) in the partnership dev process;  (2) utilize effective listening strategies before, during, and after partnership activities; (3) share information throughout the partnership in appropriate and inclusive ways, for multiple and diverse audiences

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Provides little or no evidence of how community stakeholder voice was incorporated, listening strategies were developed and carried out, and information was shared to appropriate audiences
  • 1 – Emerging
    Provides some evidence of how community stakeholder voice was incorporated but provides little evidence of how multiple voices were included; provides evidence of diverse listening strategies but not how such strategies were employed before, during, and after the project; provides evidence of how information was shared but not how efforts were designed to reach multiple or diverse audiences
  • 2 – Good
    Provides evidence of how community stakeholder voice was incorporated, including strategies to capture and accommodate multiple voices; provides evidence of diverse listening strategies and how they were employed before, during, and after the project; provides evidence of how information was shared in ways to reach multiple or diverse audiences
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Provides comprehensive evidence of how community stakeholder voice was incorporated, including strategies used to capture multiple voices; provides evidence of diverse listening strategies and how employed before, during, and after the project; provides evidence of how information was shared in ways to meet multiple or diverse audiences; reflects on what worked and what might be improved

Competency 6: Ability to involve partners in reflection and assessmentincluding ability to: (1) design opportunities for partners to check in and reflect upon their collaboration before, during and after partnerships activities; (2) moderate or facilitate reflection/assessment activities in ways that assure all members feel respected and valued and are able to provide honest or critical feedback;  (3) assess, with partnership members, which goals were accomplished, which were not, and what next steps might look

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Inadequate or no understanding of how to design multiple opportunities for reflection and assessment with community partners; provides little or no evidence of ability to moderate or facilitate reflection/assessment in respectful and inclusive ways with partners; provides little or no evidence of strategies used to assess what goals were accomplished, which were not, and what might come next
  • 1 – Emerging
    Use of a single assessment tool with partners after the partnership with little to no check ins; little attention to dynamics that may limit honest or critical feedback from partners; very limited or no reflection with partners to identify what goals were accomplished, which were not, and what next steps might be
  • 2 – Good
    Evidence of assessment and reflection with partners before, during, and after the project(s); evidence of facilitation techniques designed to assure partners across difference feel valued, respected, and able to give honest feedback; clear steps taken to discuss with partners what goals were accomplished, which were not, and what next steps might be; clear articulation of the role CEP played in the process
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Evidence of comprehensive strategy for assessment and reflection with partners before, during, and after the project(s); evidence of use of facilitation techniques designed to assure partners across difference feel valued, respected, and able to give honest feedback; clear steps taken to discuss with partners what goals were accomplished, which were not, and what next steps might be; clear articulation of the role CEP played in the process

Competency 7: Ability to resolve conflict – including the ability to: (1) monitor and facilitate communication and shared work among people with different organizational and personal norms, interests, expectations, and operating practices; (2) validate the input and authority of each partner; (3) mediate or resolve conflicts as they arise to assure inclusive, collaborative participation throughout the partnership

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Little to no ability to recognize or anticipate conflicts and miscommunication that (may) arise in partnership work; little or no mention of principles and practices of conflict resolution and how they might be applied to community partnership work. Little mention of the CEP’s responsibility to help resolve conflicts when they arise
  • 1 – Emerging
    Ability to recognize and desire to mitigate conflicts in partnership work but inadequate understanding of principles and practice of conflict resolution as applied to community partnerships (e.g., mediation efforts designed to validate the input and authority of each partner); scant mention of CEP’s responsibility and role to play in helping resolve conflicts
  • 2 – Good
    Ability to recognize and desire to mitigate conflicts that (may) arise in partnership work; ability to articulate principles and practices of conflict resolution that may be brought to bear to mediate those conflicts; demonstrated ability to design and carry out a thoughtful plan to mediate conflict in ways that assure inclusivity and collaborative participation
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Ability to recognize a variety of real and potential conflicts that (may) arise in partnership work; ability to articulate a comprehensive set of guidelines and principles to be followed when attempting to resolve conflicts; demonstrated ability to effectively propose and carry out a thoughtful plan to mediate conflict in ways that assure inclusivity and collaborative participation

Competency 8: Desire to develop authentic relationships and participate in the ongoing life of the community – including: (1) willingness to participate and invest in the community you seek to engage (e.g., attend community meetings, frequent businesses, participate in community events and festivals, serve on organizational boards, engage in community planning processes, etc.); (2) ability to participate in community life with sensitivity and care, entering as a learner, listener, and guest

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    Inability to articulate the value of engaging in the ongoing life of the community beyond one’s specific responsibilities as a CEP; no demonstrated commitment to building personal relationships and participating/ investing in community; inability to articulate one’s own principles of ethical and effective engagement.
  • 1 – Emerging
    Able to see value of engagement and service for others in the community but less of an understanding of, or commitment to, personal engagement beyond own specific role as a CEP; articulates the importance of being a resource to the community, but provides little evidence of participating in a caring way as a learner, listener, and guest
  • 2 – Good
    Able to articulate one or more ways they are actively participating in the community beyond their specific role as a CEP and why such involvement is important; able to explain the ways in which their participation positions them not simply as a resource or “expert on tap” to community, but as a caring and sensitive learner, listener, and guest
  • 3 – Exemplary
    Able to articulate the range of ways they have and will continue to participate in the community in an ongoing manner and the ethics that guide their modes of involvement; able to articulate how they participate with sensitivity and care as a learner, listener, and guest

Competency 9:  Willingness to recognize and reflect on power relations within and between stakeholders – including ability to: (1) look back on your partnership-building experience(s) to identify any challenges faced in establishing a partnership characterized by closeness, equity, and integrity; (2) consider what you do or have done differently to better address inherent power inequalities and cultivate a more inclusive, equity-based partnership

  • 0 – Absent/Insufficient
    In reflecting on their community partnership experiences as a CEP, not adequately able to imagine ways to improve the partnership to be more inclusive and equity-based; inability to identify current or future challenges that may serve as obstacles to establishing a partnership defined by “closeness, equity, and integrity”
  • 1 – Emerging
    In reflecting on their community partnership experiences as a CEP, able to identify a challenge or two to establishing equity-based partnerships, but do not adequately articulate what they might have done differently to potentially overcome these challenges
  • 2 – Good
    In reflecting on their community partnership experiences as a CEP, able to identify concerns they believe are limiting their ability to sustain a partnership based on closeness, equity, and integrity; able to articulate strategies they would undertake to assess what may have gone wrong and how it might be done differently in the future; able to articulate how they would involve the community in this process of assessment and improvement
  • 3 – Exemplary
    In reflecting on their community partnership experiences as a CEP, able to identify a range of concerns that are or could be limiting their ability to sustain a partnership based on closeness, equity, and integrity; able to articulate specific strategies taken to assess what might have been done differently, and how they collaborated (or would collaborate) with the community to undertake this process of assessment and improvement