1. WHY SHOULD UNIVERSITIES ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITIES? Ken Spencer, INLOGOV, School of Public Policy 14 th November 2005

2. WHY ENGAGE?  Universities as integral parts of local geographical and interest based communities  Skills, facilities and people resources  More governmental action through partnerships and networks (University connections to these)  Development of future Active Citizens  Research contributions

3. WHY ENGAGE?  Improved local perceptions of local and regional contributions to communities  Developing understanding of diversity within and between communities  As local employers  Enhancing the standing of many HEIs within communities  Broader learning outcomes/experiential learning  Recruitment (staff and students)

4. TYPES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT  INTEGRAL – a central, key role  INSTRUMENTAL – a role in developing university goals  INCIDENTAL – seen as not important, no strong role  Are we in the INCIDENTAL or INSTRUMENTAL categories?  Is it not possible to move to INTEGRAL?

5. TYPES OF COMMUNITY CENTRED ACTION  Information exchanges  Planning actions, e.g. local community needs, development and planning of local infrastructure, planning gain from university expansion  Implementing projects, jointly or separately (but linked)  Active co-ordination processes  Collaboration and full partnership (geographical or interest group lead)

6. PARTNERSHIPS  Formal  Voluntaristic or imposed  Organisation to organisation relationships  Clear, regular structured meetings  Valued as inter-organisational support mechanism  Clear focus and activities boundary  Composition formally defined

7. NETWORKS  Informal  Voluntaristic  Often person to person  Less regular structure more informal  Valued as personal support  Not always a clear boundary  Changing composition

8. GENERAL EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT  Local research of national/international significant – Chicago School – Nottingham – East London – inner Birmingham – etc.  Historic/current staff actions – settlement movement, UK, USA, - local councillors/MP’s/MEP’s – Voluntary Organisation Trusteeships  Learning and teaching links e.g. Loyola University of Chicago – Birmingham University, Castle Vale link – drawing on local interest groups expertise e.g. business, health  Student engagement – HEFCE Active Community Fund – sustainability – student profiles

9. EXAMPLE OF CASTLE VALE, BIRMINGHAM  Link of School of Public Policy and Housing Action Trust  Specific links with HAT Board and residents  U/G and resident joint programme on planning module  Improved learning outcomes for U/G’s  Residents trained in research methods  Leverage of research funding

10. THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE  Contributions towards a more integrated society  Development of active citizens  Communities as integral part of learning  Mixed approach to community engagement, by university type, subject area, urban or non-urban location, university overall mission?  Important role of the HEFC Active Community Fund people in universities in changing the agenda.

11. CHALLENGES  Enhancing community engagement  Sustainability of current actions  Out of box thinking for new actions/processes  Where should we be in 10 years time on community engagement, is this best left to individual universities or should there be a policy framework or guidelines for minimum standards?  How do we improve the quality of engagement for both communities and universities?