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

ix Several years ago, I was conducting ethnographic research in a neighborhood adjacent to a large urban university. While interviewing a community leader, I referred to the university as an “anchor institution.” The woman looked puzzled for a moment then smiled. “I guess that’s about right,” she said, “an anchor is something that gets dropped on people’s heads.” She and her fellow residents had valid grounds for cynicism. As was the case in many other poor neighborhoods located next to large universities in cities around the country, relations between her community and the university had been marked by decades of conflict , tension, and mutual distrust. The institution was located in the community, but not of it, surrounded by walls and several other less tangible yet still formidable barriers. In many respects, the university was more oriented and tied to peer institutions in other cities and even other countries than to the neighborhood that stood, literally, across the street. The wealth of the university, symbolized by its state-of-the-art buildings bearing the names of prominent donors, stood in stark contrast to the many dilapidated and abandoned buildings in one of the poorest communities in the city. Things have changed since that interview. The university referred to above has since committed itself to charting a much more engaged and positive relationship with the community residents. This development was, in part, inspired and guided by the examples of some of the colleges and universities profiled in this volume that, over the past decade, have sought to undo the historic disconnect between themselves and their surrounding communities and redefine what it means to be an anchor institution in more constructive and socially responsible ways. Nationally, the increased interest of anchor institutions in local community and economic development has been driven by multiple factors. In some cases, the shift was sparked by the commitment of faculty, administrators, and university presidents to practice and value more engaged scholarship and community service. In other instances, increased Foreword Charles Rutheiser x f o r e w o r d crime prompted universities to recognize the limited effectiveness of creating secure, fortified enclaves amid seas of concentrated poverty. Still other university leaders realized that their ability to attract and retain both staff and students was closely tied to the stability and appeal of the neighborhoods surrounding their campuses. These internal dynamics within institutions of higher education have been bolstered by a growing recognition by governments , economic development experts, and philanthropies that universities and hospitals— often shorthanded as “eds and meds”—are not only the current major economic engines in many urban areas, but also offer some of the best prospects to catalyze future growth in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The renewed interest of anchor institutions in their surrounding communities has been manifest in different ways. As this study suggests, universities can play several different kinds of value-added roles—as leader, facilitator, convener, and investor in various forms of human capital and physical development. But it is just as important to note that, without what Hodges and Dubb describe as a clear “anchor institution mission” that intentionally and strategically deploys the economic, human, and intellectual capital of institutions to improve the long-term welfare of the communities in which they reside, the growth of universities by themselves will not necessarily improve circumstances for the people who live in distressed communities adjacent to these institutions and, indeed, could make conditions worse. In (alas, still far too) many places, the growth of universities and colleges has been driven by narrow institutional self-interest, with scant, if any, regard for the needs and interests of their neighbors. Still, a relatively small but increasing number of colleges and universities around the country have begun to adopt and implement more enlightened definitions of their institutional self-interest that recognizes, in varying degrees to be sure, the need to engage residents and other community actors and work with them for their mutual benefit. The institutions profiled in this volume represent some of the most promising examples of how colleges and universities can work with communities to help create mutually advantageous “win-win” solutions that work for both the institutions and the communities in which they are located. While there have been many reports and articles on the role of universities as anchor institutions, the authors of this study have aimed to go beyond promotional “feel-good” pieces and anecdotal accounts to not only paint a picture of what these institutions...

Share