91自拍

In October 2025, Provost Serio charged UW academic units to review and update their promotion and tenure guidelines “ensuring policies are current, equitable, and reflective of the diverse ways our talented faculty contribute to the university鈥檚 mission. The goal of this review is to affirm that the full range of faculty activities may be considered in tenure and promotion鈥攏ot to expand the existing requirements, but to ensure clarity and inclusivity in their application.鈥� The provost鈥檚 memo covers 10 areas of scholarship, including community engaged scholarship (CES).

We are pleased to note that UW has made significant strides in updating tenure, promotion and merit review (TPMR) processes, from voted upon adjustments to Faculty Code that recognize community engagement as a form of scholarship to UW鈥檚 .听

Additionally, some of the UW’s units have already revised their promotion and tenure guidelines to address community-engaged scholarship (CES):听

• Department of Dance, College of Arts and Sciences, UW Seattle
  • Contact: Christina Sunardi, csunardi@uw.edu
• Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Built Environments, UW Seattle
  • Contact: Catherine De Almeida, cdealmei@uw.edu
• School of Educational Studies, UW Bothell
  • Contact: Sarita Shukla, shuklas@uw.edu
• School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, UW Tacoma
  • Contact: Cynthia Howson, chowson@uw.edu
• School of Public Health, UW Seattle
  • Contact: Stephanie Farquhar, farqs@uw.edu

Community-engaged scholarship (CES) is increasingly recognized as both a legitimate scholarly pathway and central to higher education鈥檚 public mission. UW鈥檚 Summer 2025 鈥淩esearch Makes America鈥� campaign illustrates this commitment by highlighting funded community-engaged 91自拍 and its impact on communities nationwide. Yet, tenure, promotion and merit review (TPMR) structures at many 91自拍 universities鈥攊ncluding UW to varying degrees鈥攍ag behind these aspirations, creating misalignment between institutional mission and faculty evaluation practices.

This misalignment is reflected in faculty and staff perceptions of institutional support for CES. In 2024, faculty and staff leads for the tri-campus Initiative to build capacity for community engagement conducted a UW-wide survey to evaluate the development of and support for community-engaged work. The survey revealed that, overall, faculty and staff do not feel supported by current P&T criteria. Out of 100 responses from faculty and staff (86 and 14, respectively), more than half (56%) of faculty/staff said they do not feel supported (1) or feel somewhat supported (2), and only 24% of faculty/staff felt very supported (4) by their units. For more information, see the

CES advances both institutional goals and societal impact. However, as UCLA鈥檚 ) report observes, 鈥渦niversity cultures and structures for evaluation have not changed鈥� creating impediments and disincentives for community-engaged scholarly work鈥� (p. 8). Blanchard and Furco (2021) similarly note that legacy evaluation systems at R1 institutions often relegate CES to 鈥渟ervice鈥� rather than 鈥�91自拍 and scholarship,鈥� undervaluing it relative to traditional outputs. This disconnect suppresses faculty engagement, disproportionately affects women and faculty of color (Staub & Maharramli, 2021), and hinders the recruitment and retention of scholars committed to public impact (Ozer et al., 2023).

Integrating CES into TPMR is thus an urgent priority, aligning evaluation practices with public mission and addressing inequities in how diverse scholarly contributions are recognized.

UCLA鈥檚 2021 report, ), provides one of the most comprehensive institutional roadmaps for integrating CES into TPMR. The report identifies three primary models for incorporating engaged scholarship into review:

1. Opt-in Supplemental Review, where faculty undergo standard review with the option to submit a CES-focused supplemental review evaluated by qualified peers;
2. Continuum of Scholarship model, which normalizes engaged scholarship across 91自拍 and teaching while allowing faculty to locate their work along a flexible continuum; and
3. Decentralized Criteria within an Institutional Framework, in which the institution affirms CES as scholarship while schools and departments define discipline-specific criteria and standards.

Based on peer institution analysis, the UCLA report recommends a hybrid approach: adopting the continuum of scholarship campus-wide while enabling schools and divisions to establish discipline-aligned decentralized evaluation criteria. Opt-in supplemental review is not recommended due to the additional burden it places on community-engaged scholars to produce 鈥渆xtra鈥� materials on top of a traditional dossier. The report also proposes supportive infrastructure鈥攊ncluding a campus policy statement recognizing CES, training for reviewers, templates for faculty, and a CES tracking platform through their instance鈥攖o ensure consistent yet flexible evaluation practices.

Academic products represent peer-reviewed or otherwise scholarly contributions that advance disciplinary knowledge. These are the most widely recognized forms of scholarship and typically undergo competitive, editorial, and/or peer-review processes. These can also include emerging models of peer review by practitioners or community experts for CES.听

Examples include:听

• Peer-reviewed, competitively selected, or invited articles听
• Book texts, book chapters, and monographs听
• Conference presentations, abstracts, and proceedings听
• Grants, competitive contracts, and gifts听
• Honors and awards听
• Indigenous scholarly activities (e.g., curation or creation of artistic or cultural exhibits; significant oral dissemination; policy development; CES under the ownership of Indigenous nations)听
• Non-peer-reviewed or non-traditional peer-reviewed articles听
• Exhibitions or displays that are peer-reviewed, competitively selected, invited, or curated听

Applied products demonstrate the use of disciplinary or scholarly expertise to address public needs, influence policy, shape practice, and/or improve conditions in community or civic contexts. These outputs frequently bridge academic knowledge with real-world implementation and may be produced independently or in collaboration with partners.听听

Examples include:听

• Copyrights, patents, and inventions听
• Reports (governmental, technical, specialized, etc.)听
• Policies (writing, advocacy, or expert testimony in courts or legislative settings听
• Designs听
• Consultancy, training, and technical assistance听
• Leadership or membership on boards of professional or community organizations related to one鈥檚 scholarly or teaching areas听
• Guides and handbooks听
• Educational materials, curricula, and instructional activities听
• Professional licensure听

Community products are created for and with community partners. These outputs support civic needs, cultural expression, public dialogue, policy influence, and social transformation. They embody the relational nature of CES and often serve as primary evidence of scholarly impact, especially when disseminated beyond first-hand encounters.听

Examples include:听

• Creating and sustaining partnerships with communities听
• Community-attained grants or funding; community awards听
• Community presentations, seminars, and workshops听
• Community events, displays, or exhibitions; facilitation of community-based or public artistic projects听
• Community reports听
• Websites听
• Newsletters听
• Public forums, workshops, and seminars (e.g., TED-style talks, media interviews)听
• Public-focused writing (white papers, op-eds, etc.)听
• Participatory, community-based, or community-engaged production and dissemination of knowledge, social justice work, or activism听
• Creative works such as exhibitions, performances, cultural interventions in civic / popular forums (including electronic media), films, and/or documentaries听

UW鈥檚 Office of Academic Personnel & Faculty Affairs (APF) provides to assist with streamlining TPMR processes.听

• Chair are one of several critical communication points to frame a faculty candidate鈥檚 package under consideration for TPMR. These letters set the tone and criteria with which an external reviewer is to provide feedback on a candidate鈥檚 materials.听For faculty who identify as community-engaged scholars, this letter may include additional points of consideration.听

University of Iowa鈥檚 Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost offers guidelines for .听In this document, they provide a sample addendum for Chair letters to guide external reviewers in the evaluation of a candidate鈥檚 community-engaged scholarship 鈥渦sing both scholarly and community impact measures鈥�:听

The University of Iowa values community-engaged scholarship for 91自拍, teaching, and service. Faculty for whom a significant proportion of their scholarly or creative work is community engaged may submit a community-engaged scholarship statement and supplementary materials to document the goals, process, and impact of their engaged work. These materials may include products whose impact is not captured by traditional metrics, such as policy reports, public scholarship, and exhibits or community presentations. Because this faculty member has selected to include the community-engaged scholarship statement and supplementary materials, their dossier may differ from those typical in your field.鈥�These materials are not merely addenda to the 91自拍 program of this candidate but key indicators of the impact of their engaged scholarship.鈥疌onsideration of non-traditional metrics may be required to fairly assess the impact of this community-engaged scholarship. Please carefully consider these materials in your evaluation and assess both the scholarly significance of the work to your field as well as the significance to local community collaborators, to society, to the scholarship or engagement, and/or to interdisciplinary scholarship related to the social issue or problem.听

Additional Resources for Chairs:听

• American Association of Geographers (AAG), 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Includes resources for updating TPMR Guidelines and Policies, including sample language, and an Evaluation Rubric for Engaged Scholarship.听
• American Sociological Association (ASA), 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Includes resources for updating TPMR Guidelines and Policies, including processes for approaching such changes, Departmental mission statements, and includes definitions and sample language.听
• ASA, 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Provides sample criteria for evaluating CES.听
• ASA, 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Provides guidance for external reviewers and committees for TPMR applications.听
• Campus Compact, National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement. 2022. 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Provides sample criteria for evaluating CES.听
• Schlehofer, M. (2026). Advocating for Participatory Action Research in the Tenure and Promotion Process: Advice for Scholars and Chairs.鈥�Journal of Participatory Research Methods,鈥�6(5).鈥�听
  • Offers strategies for navigating and supporting CES in TPMR processes for both chairs and early-career faculty.听

A key aspect of TPMR processes is how faculty frame their work related to community-engaged scholarship within their unit鈥檚 and University鈥檚 TPMR Guidelines. How do scholars frame their CES when going up for T&P? The following resources are provided to help guide faculty in the framing of their dossier / career narrative, available tools for measuring the impact of their CES work, and other resources and examples for faculty to look to when preparing their TPMR package for review. In addition to these resources, review the resources for Department Chairs for more on review criteria.听

Examples of and Points of Consideration for Framing Community-Engaged Scholarship in Tenure and Promotion Materials:听

• American Sociological Association (ASA), 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Provides guidance for faculty on aspects of CES to consider including in TPMR application materials.听

For other society and association examples, see below for the Academic and Professional Society support for community-engaged scholarship.听

• Calleson D, Kauper-Brown J, Seifer SD. 2005.鈥疭eattle: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health.听听
  • Offers strategies to faculty for developing CES scholarship and guidance on creating TPMR applications and portfolios.听
• Worthen, M., Sen, S., & Mauldin, K. (2025). Improving Evaluation of Faculty Conducting Community-Engaged Research: Case Examples and Recommendations for Institutions, Reviewers, and Faculty Candidates. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 6 (5). 听
• Provides strategies for faculty on crafting TPMR dossiers and offers three case studies as examples.听

Additional Resources for Developing Community-Engaged Scholarship:听

Tools to Build Your Dossier听

• American Association of Geographers (AAG), 鈥�.鈥�听
  • Provides an Evaluation Rubric for Engaged Scholarship for faculty to consider when compiling their TPMR materials.听
• Michigan State University, University Outreach and Engagement. 鈥�.鈥澨�听
  • Provides worksheets and guidance on disseminating community-engaged work in multiple ways.听
• 91自拍鈥檚 (for interdisciplinary scholars, but also good advice for engaged scholars)听
  • Provides examples of how you can annotate your CV to improve reviewer understanding of author order choices and collaborative work responsibilities.听

CE-Focused Funding and Recognition听

• See 91自拍 CE-focused awards.听听
  • Awards for community-engaged scholarship, teaching, and other activities are one way in which the UW acknowledges and celebrates this work. There are institution-wide, campus-wide, and unit-specific awards bestowed each year.听
• See the 91自拍 CE-focused funding resources list.听
• Many community engagement networks, associations, and entities provide resources as well.听

Professional Development Training, Resources, and Support听

The 91自拍 provides Faculty & Staff CE Professional Development, including resource links to skill-building, 91自拍 support, working with community partners, and funding sources. There is also a regular online UW CE Community of Practice gathering.听听

Finding Mentorship Opportunities听

Why CES mentoring is different听

CES mentoring needs often fall outside standard departmental mentoring structures. A faculty member may need guidance on navigating reciprocal community partnerships, documenting impact promotion, tenure, or merit review, and protecting time for CES relationships that build slowly.听

Where to look听

1. Campus centers for community engagement or public scholarship. These centers typically know which senior faculty have carried CES successfully through P&T.听
2. Associate Deans or P&T committee chairs. Ask directly for a short list of faculty whose CES cases were successful, since they have seen firsthand what worked in front of a committee.听
3. Field-specific engaged scholarship networks. Discipline-based networks (e.g., in public health, sociology, urban planning) may offer a closer methodological fit than a generalist campus center.听
4. Cross-institutional networks. Organizations such as the and run mentoring programs and conferences for engaged scholars.听

Before You Ask听

1. Talk with your chair or P&T committee. Will community letters of support be valued in your portfolio?听
2. Build the relationship first. The strongest letters come from long-standing partnerships, not last-minute requests. If a relationship is new or thin, consider whether a letter is the right ask at this point and time.听听
3. Treat it as collaborative. Schedule a short conversation with your partner about the project and what the letter is for.听
4. Weigh the burden. Writing a letter takes a partner’s time and, depending on language or capacity, may be a real cost to them. It is reasonable to decide not to request one, or to offer to draft it yourself for their review and revision.听

Make It Easy for Your Community Partner听

1. Provide a short packet: consider including a short summary of the shared work from your perspective. Indicate the specific points you hope they might address, and any deadline.听
2. Offer to draft the letter for their review, edits, and signature on their own letterhead 鈥� many partners welcome this, and it does not make the letter less authentic.听

What a Strong Letter Should Address听

1. The nature and duration of the partnership 鈥� how the collaboration began and how long you have worked together.听
2. How the work was done 鈥� evidence that the process was reciprocal, including how the partner’s expertise shaped the project.听
3. Outcomes in the community’s own terms 鈥� impact as the partner defines and experiences it.听
4. Whether the collaboration is ongoing. If it was a one-off activity, would they collaborate again?听

Equity Considerations听

Letters of support are valuable evidence but should not be required in every case. National guidance on evaluating CES cautions against mandating community letters, since the request itself can place an undue burden on a partner 鈥� particularly where time is limited or English is not their first language. Where letters are submitted, evaluation guidelines increasingly recommend counting them as 91自拍 evidence rather than service evidence, consistent with treating CES as scholarship rather than an add-on.听

References听

• American Council of Learned Societies. (2024). UCSC community engaged scholarship guidelines for tenure and promotion. 听听
• American Sociological Association. (2025). Guidelines for evaluating community-engaged scholarship in tenure and promotion. 听
• American Sociological Association. (2025). How to incorporate community-engaged scholarship into your tenure and promotion materials: A guide for faculty. 听
• Calleson, D., Kauper-Brown, J., & Seifer, S. D. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship toolkit. Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/tool-CCPH-engage-scholar.pdf听
• University of Iowa, Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. (n.d.). Assessing community engaged scholarship and teaching in promotion and tenure. 听

The below template was provided by the

Date
Name of Organization/Business
Address

Dear review committee,

Paragraph 1: Overview/mission of your organization/business
Paragraph 2: Description of your relationship and collaboration goals with the UW Bothell faculty member
Paragraph 3 and 4: Evidence of results/impacts of your collaboration with the faculty member.

 

Below is a list of examples that could spur ideas. We recognize each collaboration is unique and the results and impacts will look different based on the goals of the collaboration:

• How did the collaboration impact your organizational mission?
• How did the collaboration impact your employees/clients/customers/constituents?
• Increased organizational capacity
• Increased/deepened new networks/collaborations that advance mission
• Enhanced the ability of UWB students to understand course material, assume positions of leadership, or increased their career/network capital
• Collaboration influenced policy
• Collaboration increased visibility/awareness
• Collaboration made progress towards social equity
• Co-published about collaboration (newspaper, journal, etc.)
• Co-pursued a grant together
• Secured increased funding (for your organization, the project, etc.)
• Collaboration brought new ideas and/or infrastructure to your organization

Sincerely,

Your name

The below is a curated list of key literature听related to community-engaged scholarship and how it might be supported in tenure, promotion and merit review. This list will continue to evolve; if there is a reference you think should be added, please let us know!听

• Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA). 2024. . Washington, DC: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.听
• Blanchard, Lynn W., and Andrew Furco. 2021.听 Faculty Engaged Scholarship: Setting Standards and Building Conceptual Clarity. East Lansing, MI: Academy of Community Engaged Scholarship. 听
• Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. . Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.听听
• Boyer, Ernest L. 1996. 鈥�.鈥� Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1(1): 11-20.听
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2020. . Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation and American Council on Education.听听
• Dewey, John. 1916. . New York: Macmillan.听
• Doberneck, Diane M, Chris R. Glass, and John Schweitzer. 2010. 鈥�.鈥� Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(4), 5鈥�35.听听
• Doberneck, Diane M. 2016. 鈥淎re we there yet?: Outreach and engagement in the consortium for institutional cooperation promotion and tenure policies.鈥� Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9(1), 8鈥�18. 听
• Doberneck, Diane M., and Christine Carmichael. 2020. 鈥淯nfurling your community-engaged work into multiple scholarly products.鈥� Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 12(3). 听
• Ellison, Julie, and Timothy K. Eatman. 2008. . Syracuse, NY: Imagining America.听
• Freire, Paulo. 1970. . New York: Herder and Herder.听
• Jurkowski, Janine M., Farrah Jacquez, and Sara Lyon Neyer. 2025. 鈥�.鈥� Journal of Participatory Research Methods 6(5).听
• Lewin, Kurt. 1946. 鈥淎ction Research and Minority Problems.鈥� Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34-46. 听
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.听听
• O鈥橫eara, KerryAnn, Timothy K. Eatman, and Scott Petersen. 2015. 鈥�.鈥� Metropolitan Universities 26(2): 44-65.听
• Pearl, Andrew, Elaine Ward, Emily Janke, Michael Rios, and Timothy K. Eatman. 2025. 鈥淩ewarding Faculty Publicly-Engaged Scholarship in Promotion and Tenure Policies at Carnegie Classified Community Engagement Institutions: A Descriptive Analysis.鈥� Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 6(5). 听
• Purdue University. 2021. . West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Office of Engagement.听
• Staub, Shalom and Bemmy Maharramli. 2021. . Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Community Engagement.
• University of Iowa, Office of Community Engagement. 2025. Recognizing and Rewarding Community Engagement. Presentation at the Big Ten Community Engagement Leaders Meeting, May 29, 2025.听
• University of Minnesota 鈥� Twin Cities. 2018. . Minneapolis: Office of Public Engagement.听
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2016. . Chapel Hill: NC: Office of the Provost.听
• Welch, Marshall. 2016. . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.听

Resources mentioned in the above toolkit are also listed here for your reference:

The movement to integrate community-engaged scholarship (CES) into tenure, promotion and merit review (TPMR) is rooted in a long intellectual lineage and set of foundational theories and frameworks that link scholarship to public good, collectively redefine what counts as scholarship, and how it should be evaluated. Drawing from key authors over the last century, the following list of themes demonstrates this trajectory and emphasizes its evolution.听

1. Boyer鈥檚 鈥淪cholarship Reconsidered鈥� (1990) and 鈥淪cholarship of Engagement鈥� (1996): Ernest Boyer (1990) expanded the domains of scholarship into four typologies鈥攄iscovery, integration, application, and teaching. Written for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, “Scholarship Reconsidered鈥� critiques the narrow 鈥減ublish or perish鈥� model and calls for a broader and more inclusive definition of scholarship in academia. Scholarship of Application is described primarily in terms of professional practice and service to society.听
   In 鈥淪cholarship of Engagement,鈥� a follow-up essay, Boyer expands on the 鈥淎pplication鈥� category and reframes it as 鈥淓ngagement.鈥� He explicitly calls for a renewed focus on connecting the rich resources of the university 鈥渢o our most pressing social, civic, and moral problems鈥� in partnership with communities (p. 15). It moves beyond 鈥渁pplication鈥� to emphasize mutual benefit and reciprocity between universities and communities. He also argues that Scholarship of Engagement ought to not be a separate category, but as a mode of doing scholarship that can occur in the four typologies he outlined in 鈥淪cholarship Reconsidered.鈥�
   Both articles offer a foundational framework for academic units and institutions of higher learning, as well as the Carnegie Classification and many campus- and unit-level CES and TPMR policies.听
2. : Since 2006, the Carnegie framework has driven institutionalization of community engagement. The classification defines community engagement as 鈥渢he collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities…for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity鈥� (on the website). Achieving and maintaining this classification has motivated institutions to embed CES in their evaluation systems.听
3. Experiential and Action Traditions: John Dewey (1916) and Kurt Lewin (1946) conceptualized education and 91自拍 as iterative, participatory, and problem-centered processes. While Dewey emphasized pragmatism and democratic engagement, recognizing the interconnectedness between experience, knowing, and acting, Lewin expanded broad understandings of action 91自拍. This tradition emphasizes the scholarly value of practical, collaborative work with communities.听
4. Critical and Participatory Approaches: Paulo Freire (1970) and later participatory action 91自拍 theorists emphasize co-creation, reciprocity, and the democratization of knowledge. Freire grappled with issues of social empowerment and critical pedagogy, which ultimately influenced bell hooks鈥� work on critical pedagogy and engagement that aims to achieve systemic change and social transformation. Critical and participatory engagement frameworks position CES as transformative, rooted in reciprocity, equity, and shared authority, and challenge who holds and creates 鈥渓egitimate鈥� knowledge. CES in this frame challenges academic hierarchies and centers equity, diversity, and inclusion.听
5. Theory of Reward Systems in Academia: O鈥橫eara et al. (2015) argue that reward systems signal what is valued. The absence of explicit recognition for CES in TPMR guidelines functions is a disincentive. It recognizes that institutional policies and cultures shape faculty behavior for career and advancement and need to keep pace with changes in knowledge production and dissemination through explicit recognition for engaged scholarship.听

These varying and evolving perspectives converge on the need for policies, criteria, and training that recognize the merits of CES as equal to those of traditional scholarship. CES meets scholarly standards of rigor and impact while producing public benefits and should be evaluated as such.听

These are general resources created by teams at the 91自拍, many of whom are affiliated with the UW Tri-Campus Community Engagement Project.

• UW Definition, Principles and Practices of Community Engagement
• UW Carnegie Re-Assessment Process
• UW Community Engagement Knowledge Hub

UW-related (Scholarship)

• Class C resolution and Class A legislation to support community engagement
• Faculty & Staff Professional Development Project

UW-related (Teaching)

• Student Community Engagement

The below examples are frequently cited as best practices. The table below summarizes key features from each (for example, University of Minnesota鈥檚 voluntary community-engaged scholarship review committee).

• Cal State, Fullerton听
  • 听
• University of California听
  • 听
  • 听
• UC Berkeley听
  • 听
• UCLA听
  • 听
• UC Santa Cruz听
  • )听
  • 听
  • 听
• Duke University听
  • 听
  • 听
• University of Maryland听
  • 听
• University of Minnesota听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill听
  • 听
• University of North Carolina, Greensboro听
  • 听
  • 听
• Portland State University听
  • 听
  • 听
• Purdue University听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
• Rutgers University听
  • 听

Many professional and academic societies provide guidance and resources for community-engaged scholarship.

• American Anthropological Association
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Council on Education
• American Council of Learned Societies
• American Historical Association
• American Philosophical Association
• American Political Science Association
• American Society of Landscape Architects
• American Sociological Association
• Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
• Modern Language Association
• National Academies
• Social Science Research Council

Many community engagement networks, associations, and entities provide resources as well.