In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

27 Colleges and universities that incorporate any, or all, of the forms of engagement just described face numerous challenges and critical decisions along the way. We briefly discuss several of these issues below: creating an engaged community; establishing partnership programs and goals; institutionalizing an anchor vision; securing funding and leveraging resources; building a culture of economic inclusion; sustaining participatory planning and robust community relationships; and, where the rubber hits the road, actually meeting at least some of the key needs of the low-income residents and neighborhoods who are partners in these efforts. These same issues will be explored further in each of the comparative segments of chapters 5, 6, and 7. It is also worth noting that institutional type, scale, funding, resources, demographics, and culture are all important characteristics that play a role in shaping campus-community partnerships. This idea is woven throughout the rest of the book as we discuss individual strengths and approaches among our cross section of cases. Creating an Engaged Community Individuals, groups, and entities across the world define community in many different ways, and higher education institutions are no exception to this rule. Some universities view their community as the scholars who work and study within the boundaries of their campus. Others see themselves within a broader community—for many urban institutions, a community of poverty and blight—one with which they may or may not choose to engage. A growing number of universities have begun to see themselves as part of their surrounding community, their futures intertwined with the success of their neighbors. As Michael Morand of Yale puts it, “The inextricable bond [of a university as a community institution] is expressed by the fact that our marvelously urbanized campus is continuously intersected by public streets and sidewalks, that the art museums are free and open to the public as are over a thousand lectures, concerts, and events each year. That engagement and rootedness is what C H A P T E R 4 Addressing the Challenges C h a p t e r 4 28 fundamentally sets places like ours apart from hospitals, foundations, banks, corporations, and others that support community development.”1 For universities that have taken the view that they are within and part of their surrounding community, definitions and tactics still vary. The historical relationship between the institution and the community plays a key role in the approach to engagement. Several universities have engaged in community development in response to crisis, such as violent crimes in the neighborhood surrounding campus. Some universities strategically focus on neighborhood-level impacts, while others look to impact regional development. Some do both. Syracuse University, for example, has taken on the entire city of Syracuse as its engaged community while still focusing on revitalization of two specific neighborhoods. Not all urban universities are immediately surrounded by poverty. In such cases, they may choose to focus their partnership efforts on relations with their immediate neighbors and/or government agencies, such as Emory’s early partnership programs in the Clifton Corridor and surrounding neighborhood area. Or they may choose to invest at least some level of focused resources in a targeted neighborhood that is not directly adjacent to campus but is most in need of the resources and relationships that a university can provide, such as the University of Minnesota’s efforts in North Minneapolis or Emory’s more recent work through the Office of University Community Partnerships in low-income metropolitan Atlanta neighborhoods. Regardless of their definition, the universities in this study have all demonstrated meaningful impacts on their surrounding communities. We argue, however, that those who adopt a place-based strategy, focusing resources on specific geographic area(s), have greater potential to directly influence community economic development. This is discussed further in the final chapters of the book. Establishing Partnership Programs and Goals The specific programs and activities enlisted by campus-community partners vary greatly, although they generally align with the partners’ chosen methods of engagement, such as the six areas outlined in the previous chapter. They also depend upon the identified assets and needs of all local partners. A community needs assessment may be conducted to assess these prioritized areas, while asset mapping may be conducted to identify the capacities and strengths of local individuals, organizations, and institutions. The selected programs and goals will also depend upon existing relationships, financial capacity, and leadership. As Henry Webber and Penn’s Anchor Institutions Toolkit both suggest, anchors may want to conduct a risks-and-benefits...

Share