that faculty must master for promotion. These skills include being able to teach effectively, work responsibly in the college community, develop and pursue a research agenda, and serve the wider community.

The model proposed by Maurana and colleagues (2000) defines community scholarship as “the products that result from active, systematic engagement of academics with communities for such purposes as addressing a community-identified need, studying community problems and issues, and engaging in the development of programs that improve health.” They offer standards and criteria for assessment of this scholarship. Criteria evaluate goals, preparation, methods, results presentation, and reflective critique. The model also describes four types of community scholarship products:

1. Resources, such as how-to manuals, technical assistance, and tools and strategies to assess community strengths and assets or concerns;

2. Program outcomes, such as improved community health outcomes, increased community leadership and funding for health, and integration of students and residents into community-based efforts or creative education;

3. Dissemination, such as presentations, journal articles, and leadership at the national, state, and community levels; and

4. Other products, such as new or strengthened partnerships and coalitions and program development grants.

In Demonstrating Excellence, ASPH (1999:9) discusses the issue of service as scholarship:

To meet the requirements of scholarship as defined by ASPH, academic service must be provided through community-based participatory research, service learning or the work of the Prevention Research Centers, Centers for Genomics and Public Health, and Centers for Public Health Preparedness. Such activities to improve the health of the community not only fulfills academia’s obligation of service but also expands the knowledge base and contributes to improvements in the health of the public. The value of these contributions is great and should be acknowledged by academic institutions in their promotion and tenure policies.

For these reasons, the committee recommends that academic institu