FIELD GUIDE for Urban University-Community Partnerships J O S H UA J . YAT E S & M I C H A E L A AC C A R D I THRIVING CITIES LAB Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture University of Virginia FIELD GU DE for Urban University?Community Partnerships by joshua Yates 8 Michaela Accardi Institute For mi LEW 1A8 mung-FEM . . Advanced Studies IVERSITY Citiesg 1? IRGINIA IE A BOU T TH RI V I N G C ITI ES L A B By 2050, 3 out of every 4 people will live in cities. For the first time in its history, humanity is a predominantly urban species. This fact raises enormous questions for the prospects of human thriving in our time. With cities becoming ground-zero for virtually every consequential challenge humanity faces, from demographic and technological disruption to economic dislocation and disparity, to political and civic fracture, cities are likewise becoming the principal forging grounds for solutions. What it means and takes to thrive in 21st century urban environments—what will count as moral and material progress—is from here forward one of the grand challenges of the present era. A grand challenge that will be as much cultural and ethical as it will be political, economic, or technological. The next thirty years will be crucial for how well we will collectively meet this great societal challenge, both at home and abroad. The Thriving Cities Lab exists to understand the nature of this epochal transformation, critically engage its consequences for human thriving, and equip scholars and communities with the intellectual resources necessary for constructively meeting its demands and opportunities. Building upon two decades of cultural analysis at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, and on field research in a score of cities across the United States, the Lab’s work is organized around the study of the human ecologies of contemporary urban life, with a special focus on the changing cultural and social paradigms of wellbeing and civic life. The Lab’s research is organized around three primary expressions: + The Survey of America’s Civic Infrastructure: a series of sector-based field scans focusing on the primary institutions, associations, places, and policies that enable people to connect with one another, bridge difference, and address shared challenges in 21st century urban contexts. + Measuring the Social Good Project: ongoing research into how we define and assign value to the things that matter most for individual and collective thriving, but are hardest to assess—from the metrics we choose to the methods we use to measure impact. + Building Vibrant Human Ecologies Project: community-sponsored research around pressing challenges and concerns specific to local contexts. These partnerships not only refine the Lab’s human ecology framework, but also help develop new methods for applying these tools across different audiences and contexts. Thriving Cities was founded in 2012 as a research project at the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture. Today, the Lab continues that initial work alongside its non-profit affiliate, Thriving Cities Group. Acknowledgements TH A N K YOU Thriving Cities Lab would like to thank the Henry Luce Foundation for its generous support of this year-long research study of university-community partnerships. In addition, we are enormously grateful for the insight and guidance we received from our Steering Committee throughout the project. This project depended upon the sustained engagement and cooperation of numerous faculty and staff at universities across the United States who reviewed data, provided critical feedback, and workshopped drafts-in-progress. Needless to say, the interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of the authors. Finally, this Field Guide would not be possible without the immensely capable efforts of our colleagues at the Thriving Cities Lab and Group, not least Maggie Hirshland, along with the creative design of Alex Fulton. S TE E RI N G COMMIT TE E MEMB E RS James T. Harris III President, University of San Diego David J. Maurrasse Founder and President, Marga, Inc. Director, Anchor Institutions Task Force Rita Axelroth Hodges Assistant Director, Netter Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania Joann Weeks Associate Director, Netter Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania Louis Nelson Vice Provost for Academic Outreach, University of Virginia LI S T O F I N TE RV I E W E ES Paul Pribbenow President Augsburg University Rev. Hector Hernandez Pastor Iglesia Nueva Creación Abraham Diaz Education Specialist La Union del Pueblo Entero Steve Peacock Director, Community Relations Augsburg University Amanda Buberger Assistant Director for Community Partnerships Tulane University Lourdes Flores Executive Director ARISE Mark Wubbold Senior Policy Analyst, Presidents Office Portland State University Steve Percy Dean, College of Urban and Public Affairs Portland State University Irving Levin Board of Trustees, Co-Trustee of The Renaissance Foundation Portland State University Catherine W. Howard Vice Provost, Division of Community Engagement Virginia Commonwealth University Lynn E. Pelco Associate Vice Provost, Division of Community Engagement Virginia Commonwealth University Susan Sekerke Advancement Coordinator Daily Planet Donald Braid Director, Center for Citizenship and Community Butler University Earl Williams Community Liason Director Choice Foundation Charter Schools Andreas Hoffmann Executive Director / Founder Green Light New Orleans Sarah Munro Director, University Neighborhood Partners University of Utah Karen Tao Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology University of Utah Beam Delji-Olatunde Resident Advisory Board Member University Neighborhood Partners Cristina Trejo Associate Vice President, Community Engagement and Economic Development University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Dr. Francisco Guajardo Executive Director, B3 Institute University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Virginia Santana Unidos Program ARISE Eva Carranza Volunteer / Resident ARISE Lindsey Beagley Director of Social Embeddedness Arizona State University Erica Schwartzmann Program Manager for ASU / St.Vincent de Paul Partnership Arizona State University Kylie Patterson Director of Economic Inclusion Johns Hopkins Bob Gillespie Founder / Owner Propr Design LaQuicha Brown Owner Berries by Quicha TABLE OF CONTENTS Rationale 6 National Scan 9 national trends • 12 variations in pr actice • 17 Frontiers ­2 0 Conclusion 42 Framework & Recommendations 46 Endnotes 57 Bibliography 58 Appendices 60 INTRODUCTION — Purpose of this Field Guide Over the past three decades, American universities and colleges have witnessed a surge in activities oriented around their civic and social purposes. From the signing of the first Campus Compact Action Statement in 1985, which today includes over 1,000 university members, to the establishment of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities in 1989, which now serves over 90 universities and colleges, to the establishment of the Community Outreach Partnership Center by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the 1990s, to the creation of the Carnegie Classification Elective on Community Engagement in the mid-2000s, what began as a revival of civic purpose and public service among institutions of higher education has evolved into a burgeoning movement of university-community partnerships nationwide. Alongside all this activity, a slate of pedagogical terms such as service learning, community-based research, and anchor institutions has entered the academic lexicon. This movement continues to develop into a recognized field of institutional practice, serviced by a growing number of dedicated centers, specialists, frameworks, toolkits, and certifications. This Field Guide is intended to advance the growing field and practice of university-community partnerships in two immediate and timely ways. It seeks to provide the first survey of the field through a scan of 100 urban universities and colleges. To our knowledge, this is the only survey of its kind that is national in scope, and which provides a composite picture of the field today and where it is trending in the near future. This Field Guide also seeks to offer a framework and methods by which individual universities and colleges can track the progress of the field, compare learning across institutions, and distill best practices for their own work in university-community partnerships. In this way, the Field Guide seeks to complement a range of capacity-building resources that already exist by offering a stepwise opportunity for practitioners to locate themselves within the field of their peers, discern a best next step for their institutions and communities, and connect with the resources they need to be successful (for a list of some of the more prominent resources, please see the Bibliography). Beyond mere academic interest, the Field Guide is intended to be a ready resource for those interested in strengthening their home institution’s commitment to and practice of university-community partnerships, as well as for those working to deepen and expand the impact of the field as a whole. R ATIONALE — T H E N E W U R B A N I M P E R AT I V E FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S AND THE UNIVERSIT Y Nearly 85 percent of Americans live in metro areas, which produce 90 percent of the U.S.’s total economic output and 85 percent of its jobs.1 Beyond the sheer economic might of cities and their metros today, we are living through a pronounced era of urban revitalization. Where the last decades of the 20th century saw the steady decline and emptying out of the country’s urban centers, the start of the 21st century is witnessing a stunning reversal of fortunes. Downtowns are once again becoming hubs of commercial activity, infrastructure development, and cultural vitality. At the same time, however, these forces are producing a massive affordability and displacement crisis for many working-class and low-income residents, reinforcing decades of disinvestment and disadvantage. It is essential that we look to cities as spaces where the fight against society’s most pressing and endemic challenges, from inequality to climate change to gentrification, will be won or lost. The good news is that there are compelling reasons for hope. While our national institutions and politics are facing severe crises of confidence and efficacy, cities everywhere are pioneering innovative approaches to local problem-solving and decision-making that could prove instrumental in meeting these challenges. 2 Colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to make lasting contributions to local problem-solving efforts, and they are at the forefront of pioneering endeavors in cities across the country. This is not surprising since more than half of the nation’s colleges and universities are located in cities, and over 90 percent of all U.S. college students attend college in a city. 3 Moreover, a combination of changing economic and demographic realities is forcing colleges and universities to reappraise and reaffirm an essential aspect of their historic aims: promoting the public good. U.S. colleges and universities have been, from their earliest iterations, distinctively driven by a public service mission. Today these institutions possess a variety of resources (intellectual, human, financial, etc.) that can support their local communities in addressing key challenges. Often, colleges and universities are among the only intact institutions that remained during decades of human and financial capital flight. Today, a university or university-affiliated hospital is the most significant employer in over one-third of the urban areas in the U.S. 4 Against the changing fortunes of our nation’s metros, urban colleges and universities have begun to embrace more intentional community engagement strategies, and have, over the past thirty years, given rise to the university-community partnership movement. A G E N E R AT I O N O F C I V I C A N D C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T: A WORK IN PROGRESS University-community partnerships offer institutions of higher education, and the communities in which they are located, enormous potential for mutual benefit. Despite this potential and the widespread growth in the university-community partnership model of civic and community engagement over the past few decades, effective implementation remains a work in progress. Most immediately, many universities have a fraught history of failed, even parasitic, relationships with their local communities. Initiatives are often sporadic, disconnected or redundant in nature, supported by individual faculty, specific funding or fleeting leadership, without incentives for broad-based support or long-term institutional commitment. 5 Rationale Executive Summary Throughout 2018, Thriving Cities Lab, based at the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture (IASC), researched trends in university-community partnership at institutions of higher education across the United States. The Field Guide presents the findings in three sections: 1 A National Scan of 100 urban universities and colleges to understand current trends within the field. 2 Snapshots of ten frontiers of practice identified through the National Scan. The goal of the Field Guide is to illuminate the institutional infrastructure needed to create and sustain effective, equitable, and enduring partnerships of mutual benefit and to support advancement of the field over the next generation. Repairing broken trust and building reciprocal, local relationships remains a challenge, particularly when universities wield significant social and economic power relative to their community partners. the volume of institutional resources needed to support this work over time. DEEP ENING T HE VA LUE P R O P O S I T I O N O F U N I V E R S I T YCOMMUNI T Y PA RT NER SHIP S Despite ongoing challenges to effective implementation, support for community engagement and partnerships is widespread across urban institutions of higher education. Ninety-five percent of urban universities sampled in this study included a commitment to community engagement and/or partnerships in their most recent strategic plan. After a generation of experimentation and innovation, the case for university-community partnerships appears to have been made so successfully that it has become standard practice. Internally, there remain a host of challenges to the development of well-coordinated and sustained engagement between colleges and universities and their home communities. These range from the lack of buy-in from institutional leadership, to the perception among faculty that community-based initiatives lack serious academic value, to the privileging of lofty rhetoric over a commitment to genuine implementation. Many institutions are trying to figure out what it takes to shift from traditionally ad hoc and decentralized approaches to more intentional and systematic ones. As they do, institutions are beginning to recognize that such shifts require changes to perceived academic norms, both in how they define and conduct the business of universities, and not least, in This is backed by existing research on the subject. The various formulations and iterations of university-community partnerships, from service-learning programs to applied community-based research, generate a variety 07 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S 3 A stepwise guide for university-based practitioners to locate themselves within the field of their peers, discern a best next step for their institutions and their communities, and connect with the resources they need to be successful. FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S of positive effects for institutions of higher education, including student learning, faculty satisfaction, and local spending. To cite just one study, Lockeman and Pelco (2013) followed a group of more than 3,000 students for six years as they completed their studies at a large urban public university. The study found that service-learning participation was related to several academic indicators, including credits earned, GPAs, and degree completion. In similar studies, faculty using service-learning pedagogies reported satisfaction with the quality of student learning. Students engaged in service-learning reported stronger relationships with faculty than those who were not involved in service learning. 6 There are broader societal reasons why college and university leaders have embraced university-community partnerships. According to a 2018 Gallup survey, less than half of Americans have confidence in higher education today.7 A 2017 Pew Research Center study found that only 55 percent of Americans feel colleges and universities have positive impacts on the national state of affairs. 8 Trends like this have led university leaders like Lawrence Bacow, president of Harvard, to acknowledge that the academy must increasingly prove its social value to a questioning public: University-community partnerships offer one credible way for institutions of higher education to demonstrate their contribution to the public good and justify their value proposition more broadly, in a time of increasing distrust of institutions. As the commitment, evidence, and incentives in support of university-community partnerships continue to expand, the field now requires that we build upon the past thirty years of movement and activity. The field needs to deepen the value proposition of the university-community partnership model, both internally and externally, to ensure progress for the next thirty years. However, the community engagement field as a whole lacks shared ways to track progress, compare learnings across institutions, and distill best practices across the national academic landscape. “For the first time in my lifetime, people are actually questioning the value of sending a child to college. For the first time in my lifetime, people are asking whether or not colleges and universities are worthy of public support. For the first time in my lifetime, people are expressing doubts about whether colleges and universities are even good for the nation. These questions force us to ask: What does higher education really contribute to the national life?” 8 Rationale NATIONAL SCAN T H E D ATA D ATA L I M I TAT I O N S Over the course of 2018, the Thriving Cities Lab surveyed 100 urban colleges and universities from around the nation (see list of universities sampled in Appendix II). These institutions were selected randomly from the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Classification awardee list and the Coalition for Urban and Metropolitan Universities member list. Using the Census Bureau’s definition of urban (areas with a population of at least 50,000 people), this list was refined to ensure a representative national geographic distribution, to incorporate Thriving Cities Lab’s home institution (the University of Virginia), and a handful of established leaders in the field.9 The sampling frame was drawn from the Coalition of Urban Metropolitan Universities (CUMU) member list and institutions awarded the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Classification. This strategy was used to ensure that the study would capture standard practice trends as well as pioneering innovations. As a result, the findings may be more indicative of trends among those institutions of higher education already committed to community engagement and partnership than of the total academic landscape. Moreover, varied geographic settings and contexts can lead to community engagement and partnerships manifesting in different ways, which makes comparison across 100 diverse institutions inherently difficult. While this National Scan captures trends, it cannot capture all the nuanced practices and innovative work happening across contexts. The survey assessed selected colleges and universities in terms of twenty-five questions about whether and how those institutions engaged in university-community partnerships, using online, publicly available information (ie. websites, reports, publications) in the areas of: Finally, the data collected was sent to each institution via an online survey. This survey provided colleges and universities in the sample with an opportunity to review and update information collected from their publicly-accessible online information. This survey had a 47 percent response rate. 1 Articulated public commitment, 2 Research, 3 Teaching/curriculum, 4 Service, and 5 Institutional operations 09 IOO UNIVERSITIES MAP KEY Frontiers of Practice Universities Field Scan Universities Over the course of 2018, Thriving Cities Lab conducted a National Scan of 100 urban institutions of higher education across the United States in order to understand the key trends defining how colleges and universities pursue partnerships with their local communities. The Scan focused on three areas of activity: organizational commitments (mission statements, strategic planning, and presidential leadership), core academic functions (teaching, research, and public service), and institutional operations (hiring, procurement, and investment). — For a full list of all 100 universities sampled, see the inside back cover of this Field Guide. N ATI O N A L SC A N Trends at a Glance Sampled from 100 universities in areas with a population of at least 50,000 people. University Mission Statements with Commitment to Public Service Universities with Presidents Prioritizing Community Engagement 74 68 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S % % Universities with a Central Office Dedicated to Community Engagement Average Age of University Central Offices 95 18.3 % years Universities with Strategic Plan Commitment to Community Engagement 92 59 56 6 % academic commitment University Central Offices with Community Members % % anchor commitment both Universities with Centralized, Community-Engaged Pedagogy 1 3 90 % National Scan % no commitment Universities with CommunityEngaged Research Funding 2 3 Trend Summaries M I S S I O N S TAT E M E N T S Commitment to pursuing education and research in service to the public good is far from a new ideal in the history of higher education in the U.S. These commitments are variously expressed in mission and charter statements. s e v e n t y - f o u r p e r c e n t of colleges and universities sampled in this study have a mission or charter statement that articulates a specific commitment to public service within their local communities ( f i g u r e o n e ) . The University of San Diego is a Roman Catholic institution committed to advancing academic excellence, expanding liberal and professional knowledge, creating a diverse and inclusive community and preparing leaders who are dedicated to ethical conduct and compassionate service. Compassionate service is later specified: “This spirit of service takes USD students into our local neighborhood, to downtown San Diego, across the border and to far-flung corners of the world.” yes 74% 26% Data Limitation Mission statements are created and updated infrequently in the life of colleges and universities, making timely comparisons difficult. As the premier urban, public research university in Virginia, VCU’s mission is to advance knowledge and student success through its commitments to: Sustainable, university-community partnerships that enhance the educational, economic and cultural vitality of the communities VCU serves in Virginia and around the world. Some universities, such as the University of Vermont, Seattle University, University of Colorado Denver, Belmont University and Missouri State University include similar commitments to public service and community engagement in public statements outside of their mission statements. Others, such as Harvard University, do not have a centralized mission statement. However, this does not mean that these scholars do not value or pursue a commitment to public service or community engagement, only that it is not formalized in the institution’s mission or charter statements. While there is variability in the specific formulations and approaches individual institutions employ, we see that a fairly uniform set of practices and supporting infrastructure has developed around the work of university-community partnerships over the past three decades. 013 No FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S The University of San Diego and Virginia Commonwealth University offer two examples (one private and religious, the other public and secular) with an articulated commitment to community service and engagement in their mission statements: figure one S T R AT E G I C P L A N N I N G figure two It is not uncommon for there to be cynicism about the value of strategic plans within colleges and universities, with many faculty believing they do not fit with longstanding academic culture and traditions. However, one benefit is that strategic plans (and the processes of creating and implementing them) have the potential to turn rhetorical aspirations into institutional realities. In the same way that they can drive an institution toward goals such as achieving financial viability, student affordability, or meeting accreditation and ranking goals, strategic plans can be critical mechanisms by which to institutionalize commitments to community engagement and partnership. They can compel universities and their leadership to specify input and outcome targets and then be held accountable for performance on key metrics of success. Strategic plans also align key objectives with institutional resources and funding. Finally, when mandated in strategic plans, commitments to community partnership can be less subject to change in university leadership and priorities over time. 100 Percent of Universities with Strategic Plan FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S 80 60 40 20 0 academic anchor both none Commitment Type Data Limitation Not all universities have strategic plans. Not all who do make them publicly available. figure three Of the 100 universities in this study, only ten did not have a strategic plan. Of the ninety that did, 9 5 p e r c e n t had a commitment to engaging with their local communities as a stated objective. As with mission statements, these objectives expressed their organization’s commitment to community engagement in a variety of formulations. A majority ( 9 2 p e r c e n t ) focused on academic teaching and student education initiatives like service learning, while over half ( 59 p e r c e n t ) focused on leveraging assets for community benefit. Successful strategies included an array of available institutional assets from local purchasing and hiring to real estate investment, business incubation and other economic development objectives. A majority of plans ( 5 6 p e r c e n t ) had both types of commitments as strategic objectives ( f i g u r e t w o ) . This data indicates that the majority of universities included in the sample not only have a strong teaching commitment to engaging with their local community, but an increasing number are also embracing the concept of an “anchor institution.” (See page 16 for the definition of an anchor institution). PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP yes no 68 % 32 % Data Limitation The research team determined a university president’s commitment to community engagement based on information from the Office of the President’s website and publicly available speeches and writing. Not all universities update these websites frequently. As leaders and visionaries of their institutions, university presidents play a critical role in determining both the legitimacy and level of commitment a college or university has to community engagement and partnership. From determining how the university pursues its strategic goals and objectives, to shaping the tenor of the academic culture, to overseeing physical operations and development priorities, it would be hard to overestimate the role university presidents play in prioritizing the importance of community engagement in their institutions. s i x t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t of the universities sampled have presidents who prioritize community/civic engagement or public National Scan service in their public statements, indicating a university-wide commitment to developing and achieving community-oriented goals ( f i g u r e t h r e e ) . figure four CENTRAL OFFICES Articulated commitments formalized in either university mission statements or presidential statements are a strong sign of an institution’s commitment to community engagement and partnership as a form of public service. An even stronger sign is the degree to which colleges and universities are institutionalizing these commitments in their regular operations and activities. One way we see this taking place is through the establishment of central offices for community engagement and partnership. The vast majority of universities included in this sample— n i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t —have a central, legible body dedicated to advancing community engagement or partnerships across the university, most commonly in the form of an office or center (f i g u r e f o u r ). yes no 95% 05 % While there are notable exceptions—DePaul University’s Steans Center for Community-Based Service Learning is 120 years old—the majority of central offices in this study were about eighteen y e a r s old or le s s , suggesting how recent a trend this is among most colleges and universities ( f i g u r e s i x ) . Moreover, while most universities have a central community engagement office, l e s s t h a n o n e - t h i r d ( 3 2 .6 p e r c e n t ) of those offices have a governance structure, such as an advisory board or steering committee, that includes local community stakeholders ( f i g u r e f i v e ) . This highlights an opportunity for growth within universities and across the field of university-community partnerships. Ensuring greater representation of community stakeholders in governance, as well as more participatory, inclusive decision-making practices, will not only address the power imbalances that have historically plagued university-community partnerships, but enrich the academic objectives of teaching and research. While including community members in formal governance structures may not be no yes n /a 61% 30% 09% Data Limitation University governance bodies may not be the most appropriate vehicles for including community members in decision-making, and the absence of community members on an advisory or community board does not always mean they are not involved in decision-making. For example, nonprofit partnerships may be another method used to represent local community stakeholders. figure six Number of Universities 30 Data Limitation Not all universities had the age of their central office for community engagement readily available. While some universities provided estimates, five universities did not know the age of their central office for community engagement and were listed in the data as unknown. 20 10 0 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Decade Established 0 15 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S figure five figure seven the only way to accomplish these ends, the current lack of community representation is notable. COURSE PEDAGOGY yes no FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S 90 % 10% Data Limitation The presence of a centralized course pedagogy oriented towards service or community engagement was collected in this research. However, these courses varied in topic and requirements. Some are hyperlocal and service-based, while others are broad, issue-based and did not include hands-on experience. Almost all of the universities included in this sample ( 9 0 percent ) , have a dedicated set of course offerings for community-engaged teaching and student learning ( figure seven ) . These courses provide students with expanded opportunities to interact with local community organizations and leaders as well as the range of stakeholders they serve. In this way, the local community becomes a “classroom” where students can learn from real life contexts and situations. The goal of these courses is typically to foster student success by “preparing students from diverse backgrounds for lives of impact as leaders and citizens” (University of Utah), by “preparing students to be global citizens and informed leaders motivated by concern for the common good” (Elon University), and by preparing students “to be accountable leaders who will bring to their work dedication to the global community, a grasp of complexity, effective problem-solving and communication skills, and an enduring commitment to learning and ethical conduct” (University of Vermont). The particular ways this pedagogy is organized can again take a range of forms across universities, but for the majority of institutions it is offered as a suite of elective courses to students with a community, national, or global focus, typically with a service learning component. However, of the universities with a centralized pedagogy, only 15 p e r c e n t require students to take at least one community-engaged course as an undergraduate graduation requirement. figure eight RESEARCH FUNDING yes no 69% 31% Data Limitation The total amount of research funding available for communitybased research is not typically available since many universities have decentralized budgets and do not track the total amount of spending. Having a commitment to community engagement and partnership as an aspect of public service or as a vehicle for curricular instruction is one thing; building it into the core research functions of the university is another. Nevertheless, many universities are increasingly integrating it into their core research functions, albeit in modest ways. Around t wo -thirds ( 69 percent) of the universities in the sample have funding opportunities available for students and/or faculty interested in community-engaged research ( f i g u r e e i g h t ) . This enables students, faculty, and local residents to collaborate on research projects, addressing focal issues in the community. ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS Anchor institutions are enterprises such as universities, hospitals, cultural institutions, foundations, faith-based organizations, and the like that are rooted in their local communities by mission, invested capital, or relationships. As place-based entities that control vast economic, human, intellectual, and institutional resources, anchor institutions have the potential to bring vital and measurable benefits to local communities and their residents over multiple generations. For more information see: community-wealth.org/strategies/panel/anchors/index.html and margainc.com/aitf. VARIATIONS IN PRACTICE It is clear from this survey of key trends across institutions included in the National Scan that a general consensus has emerged around how colleges and universities typically pursue university-community engagement and partnerships. While there is variability in the specific formulations and approaches individual institutions employ, we see that a fairly uniform set of standard practices and supporting infrastructure has developed around this work over the past three decades. A secondary question of interest is: Are colleges and universities adopting any particular combination of these standard practices and supporting infrastructures, and if so, what patterns do we see? In short, are the colleges and universities in this survey choosing similar à la carte approaches to community engagement or are they opting for common “packages” of standard elements? Using an exploratory cluster analysis, the Thriving Cities Lab’s research team found that our sample of 100 colleges and universities could be clustered into five distinct groups based on which combinations of standard elements they currently employ. To this end, each university was assigned a single point for having each of the following: CENTRAL OFFICE A central, legible body dedicated to advancing community engagement, partnership, or outreach. COURSE PEDAGOGY A centralized academic course structure (such as service-learning), which may include a graduation requirement. RESEARCH FUNDING The institution has one or more funding opportunities available for students and/or faculty interested in community-engaged research. S T R AT E G I C P L A N C O M M I T M E N T The institution’s most recent strategic plan includes a commitment to community engagement. This commitment may be academic in nature, or related to hiring, purchasing and/or economic development. G O V E R N A N C E S T R U C T U R E W I T H C O M M U N I T Y S TA K E H O L D E R S Community members and stakeholders are included in the governance structure of its central office. 0 17 Cluster Variations Cluster 1 Universities with a central office, but no core pedagogy/course offerings — Cluster 2 Universities with both a central office and core pedagogy/course offerings — FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Cluster 3 Universities with a central office, core pedagogy/course offerings, and strategic plan commitment — Cluster 4 Universities with a central office, core pedagogy/course offerings, strategic plan commitment, and community-based research funding — Cluster 5 Universities with work in all categories—a central office, core pedagogy/course offerings, strategic plan commitment, community-based research funding, and a governance structure inclusive of community members — Cluster 6 Outlier universities that did not fit with the other cluster variations Cluster Analysis Findings The cluster analysis reveals that most universities are in clusters 4 and 5 (55 universities), reinforcing the idea that common practices for institutionalizing engagement include: central offices, standardized course pedagogies, strategic plan commitments, and community-based research funding. It is not currently a common practice to include community members in decision-making or governance structures. Only sixteen of the 100 universities in our sample include community members in their central office’s governance structure (such as an advisory board or community committee). This may indicate a shift from knowledge-delivery and service-learning models to co-creation and shared decision-making with local community members. Beyond identifying the most successful strategies, universities in this sample are implementing. The cluster analysis also provides insight into the degree to which community engagement is established or embedded within these institutions. In fact, four of the five clusters build on each other, from having one or two of the standard elements to having all of them. The cluster analysis also uncovered an important outlier cluster, which includes Harvard University, the University of Virginia, and Arizona State University. Although these universities do not currently fit into the mold outlined by the cluster analysis findings, they still engage with their local communities in a variety of ways. Harvard has many independent education, housing, and community initiatives, rather than a single, centralized initiative or office. The University of Virginia’s current community-engaged activities are predominantly student-run, however there is an emerging university-wide initiative in development, stemming from the Vice Provost for Academic Outreach and recently inaugurated University President. Arizona State University also deviates from standard practice with an intentionally decentralized model, connecting community-engaged faculty and staff through a Social Embeddedness Network Conference spearheaded by the interdisciplinary Office of University Initiatives. These examples show how community engagement is dependent on the context of each institution, and demonstrate that the trends seen in the cluster analysis, although common, are not the only ways universities can successfully engage with their communities. For a full list of all 100 universities sampled, see the inside back cover of this Field Guide. Cluster Analysis CLUSTER 1 Central Office Core Pedagogy + Course Offerings Strategic Plan Commitment Community-Based Research Funding Governance Structure Inclusive of Community Members Cluster 1 CENTRAL OFFICE 10 CLUSTER 2 Cluster 2 CORE PEDAGOGY + COURSE OFFERINGS 10 CLUSTER 3 Central Office Core Pedagogy + Course Offerings Strategic Plan Commitment Community-Based Research Funding Governance Structure Inclusive of Community Members Cluster 3 S T R AT E G I C P L A N COMMITMENT 25 CLUSTER 4 Cluster 4 C O M M U N I T Y-B A S E D RESE ARCH FUNDING 30 Central Office Core Pedagogy + Course Offerings Strategic Plan Commitment Community-Based Research Funding Governance Structure Inclusive of Community Members CLUSTER 5 Central Office Core Pedagogy + Course Offerings Strategic Plan Commitment Community-Based Research Funding Governance Structure Inclusive of Community Members Cluster 5 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE INCLUSIVE OF COMMUNIT Y MEMBERS 16 CLUSTER 6 Cluster 6 OUTLIERS 9 Central Office Core Pedagogy + Course Offerings Strategic Plan Commitment Community-Based Research Funding Governance Structure Inclusive of Community Members FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Central Office Core Pedagogy + Course Offerings Strategic Plan Commitment Community-Based Research Funding Governance Structure Inclusive of Community Members FRONTIERS of Community Engagement and Partnership Frontier Snapshots While the National Scan provides a high-level, “30,000 foot”-look at key trends and variations within university-community partnerships across the country, this document also aims to consider the frontiers of the movement. As a “state of the field,” this Field Guide seeks not only to track how the movement has evolved over the past generation, (in terms of the way colleges and universities commonly articulate, implement, and institutionalize their commitments to community engagement and partnership), but also where the field as a whole is moving as we look ahead to the next generation. The universities featured in these case study snapshots are neither the only innovative institutions in our sample, nor do their highlighted initiatives exhaust the full range of innovation occurring across the field of university-community partnerships today. One of the exciting findings of this research was just how many colleges and universities were in the process of innovating on some aspect of the practice, most often in response to the specific needs of their local context. The schools and initiatives featured in these snapshots were chosen from a pool of institutions emerging from the National Scan as possessing a program or initiative that went beyond common practice. This pool of candidates was further refined to reflect representativeness across geographic region, institutional size, and demographics. To ensure some measure of objectivity, the data for these snapshots were assembled through a series of phone interviews with both university representatives and, separately, with community partners. Frontier Universities P O R T L A N D S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F U TA H Equity and Strategic Planning Funding Community-Based Research UNIVERSIT Y OF TEX AS V I R G I N I A C O M M O N W E A LT H RIO GR A NDE VA L L E Y UNIVERSIT Y Community Learning Exchanges Redesigning Promotion and Tenure T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F U TA H JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSIT Y Place-Based, Community Driven Partnerships Buying, Hiring and Purchasing Local TUL ANE UNIVERSIT Y AUGSBURG UNIVERSIT Y Public Service Community-Wide Anchor Partnerships BUTLER UNIVERSIT Y A R I Z O N A S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y Redesigning Core Curriculum Measuring and Reporting Impact 021 F IE L D GU ID E F O R U R B A N U NI V E R S I T Y- C O MM U NI T Y PA R T NE R S HIP S This section of the Field Guide offers illustrative snapshots of colleges and universities that are pushing the boundaries of standard practice along ten “frontiers,” or areas of innovation. Intentionally structured as “snapshots” rather than in-depth case studies, they are intended to serve three purposes: (1) to offer a brief synopsis of a particular innovation under consideration by describing what it is, who is involved, why it was developed, and how it is being implemented; (2) to highlight critical lessons learned and challenges encountered in the effort to innovate in a given area; and (3) to highlight a range of innovations with goals of institutionalizing more equitable and mutually beneficial forms of engagement. Applying an Equity Lens to Strategic Planning P O R T L A N D S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y PA I R S S T R A T E G I C P L A N N I N G W I T H E Q U I T Y FRONTIER P O R T L A N D S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y 1 What Institutions of higher education are increasingly incorporating community and civic engagement goals into their strategic plans. Portland State University’s (PSU) 2016–2020 Strategic Plan Let Knowledge Serve the City is a unique example of how a commitment to community engagement can be incorporated into a strategic plan, as well as how a planning process can push a university to convene around a commitment to, and awareness of, equity as a tactical priority. 10 In fact, PSU’s strategic commitment to equity goes further by making it foundational to its other priorities. Every goal in the strategic plan must be evaluated through an equity lens. PSU defines equity as “ensuring everyone has access to opportunities necessary to satisfy essential needs, advance their well-being, and achieve their full potential.” 11 “It was a very deliberate and thorough effort to bring in students, faculty, administration, unions, everything from outside,” said Irving Levin, PSU Board of Trustees member.12 Who PSU is a public research university located in Portland, Oregon. PSU has built a reputation for connecting learning and inquiry to the Portland region. “Community engagement is such a part of our ethos here that you don’t have to sell it,” said Stephen Percy, Dean of the College of Urban and Public Affairs. 13 The community-engaged nature of the strategic planning process was dictated by a Board of Trustees’ resolution, which stated: “The plan should be developed with involvement from internal and external constituencies such as the Faculty Senate, Student Senate, represented and unrepresented employee groups, the PSU Foundation, the alumni association, and key external stakeholders.” 3 A diverse Strategic Planning Development Team (SPDT) was created to provide overall guidance about the development of the new strategic plan. Two parallel Equity Lens Teams were developed to focus specifically on equity throughout all aspects of the plan. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Direction from the Board of Trustees // Leadership driving community engagement and outreach was critical in ensuring its priority in the strategic planning process. 3 Integrate Equity at the Start & Bring in External Expertise when it is Lacking // Integrating equity takes time and should ideally include a learning or training component led by an expert. 3 Use the Strategic Planning Process to Generate Cohesion // The strategic planning process itself, through outreach and engagement, was used to generate cohesion across a divided campus and build a shared vision for PSU’s future. KEY CHALLENGES Community Engagement It is a challenge for residents to know how and when to engage with universities because they don’t have a clear “front door.” Why The focus on equity in the recent strategic planning effort arose from a report by PSU Professor Anne Curry Stevens, senior research assistant Amanda Cross Hemmer, and the Coalition of Communities of Color, that highlighted substantial social disparities among people of color in PSU’s home community of Multnomah County. The propensity to use an equity lens in strategic planning was also fostered by the recognition that other local organization and community partners community partners were already doing so. Furthermore, PSU hoped to reunify a divided campus by creating a bold, five-year vision plan for moving forward. “We were fortunate to be able to draw upon existing community expertise. We were able to include some community members from the city in our topic teams, and they brought their work and perspective,” said Mark Wubbold, Senior Policy Analyst in PSU’s President’s Office. 6 Financial Accountability It is difficult for an equity commitment to be maximally effective if it does not also impact a university’s financial and funding decisions. 5 How The strategic planning effort, organized by the President’s Office, began in spring 2014 with a convening of eighty-five faculty, staff, students, administrative leaders, and trustees as a first step towards unifying PSU’s next strategic plan. Two Equity Lens Teams were developed in the midst of the planning process in order to “...ensure focused attention upon race as an equity imperative, but also include other forms of marginalization that have reduced opportunities and bred discrimination.” 3 A guide was created to instruct and train the strategic planning team members about the intent and practice of using the equity lens. The final plan embraces equity as an ongoing goal of the whole institution, commits the campus to using an equity lens in campus decision-making and planning, and includes a separate set of equity considerations for each topic area. “The equity lens is not just about engagement. It’s actually about everything we do,” said Dean Percy.6 023 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Complexity Building a shared understanding of equity across stakeholders and disciplines is a challenge that takes time and intentional training.6 Founding a Community-Driven University U N I V E R S I T Y O F T E X A S R I O G R A N D E VA L L E Y ’ S C O M M U N I T Y L E A R N I N G E X C H A N G E S FRONTIER UNI V ER SI T Y OF T E X A S RIO GR A NDE VA L L E Y 2 What While many institutions of higher education have been well-established for decades, or longer, university creation, expansion or restructuring provides a unique opportunity for leadership to make a foundational commitment to being an engaged university. In other words, community residents potentially have the opportunity to help align university priorities with their public mission from the beginning. Unidos por RGV (United for Rio Grande Valley) is an initiative that “marshals the collective power of low-income communities in the Rio Grande Valley to support the creation of an engaged University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV) and promote equitable development and increased prosperity for all.” 14 In partnership with UTRGV, a coalition of low-income advocates, organizations, and their allies from across the Lower Rio Grande Valley are working to assure that low-income residents are active participants in university planning and research processes, and prepared to be effective partners into the future through Community Learning Exchanges (CLE). Who UTRGV, located in south Texas along the U.S.Mexico border, was created by the Texas legislature in 2013 to be Texas’s first major public university of the 21st century. The University of Texas Pan American and the University of Texas at Brownsville merged to create a new regional state university serving south Texas. This merger enabled the creation of a new School of Medicine and the opportunity to access the Permanent University Fund (PUF), the University of Texas System’s multi-million dollar endowment.15 Following the legislative mandate to create UTRGV, a group of community-based organizations came together to find ways to influence the development of the new university, including La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), A Resource in Serving Equality (ARISE), Community Development Corporation of Brownsville (CDCB) and buildingcommunityWORKSHOP. This group of community organizations collaborated to form Unidos Por RGV, in partnership with UTRGV and the University of Texas System.3 Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Simultaneously Building Grasstops & Grassroots Leadership Capacity // The Community Learning Exchange (CLE) model simultaneously builds the capacity of faculty and community leaders to participate in and prioritize partnerships and community-engaged work. Partner with Established & Trusted Organizations // The success of this initiative can largely be attributed to partnerships with community-based organizations that have already established trust with residents over decades. 6 Pilot Projects // The pilot project approach, starting with the College of Education, has enabled the Division of Government & Community Relations to learn from and refine the CLE model as well as to build support from the faculty and staff of individual colleges. KEY CHALLENGES Scaling Up UTRGV has had success with the CLE model at the College of Education and the College of Sciences, but is now challenged by how to scale this work across the entire institution. Why The creation of a new university, a history of community organizing, and a well-established disconnect between residents of the Lower Rio Grande Valley and higher education resources catalyzed the creation of Unidos por RGV. Community leaders and residents saw the formation of a new university as a critical opportunity to influence community development outcomes in the region and bridge the gap between higher education resources and colonia residents. “We felt like this (university merger) was something where we could possibly have a lot to share, and give a lot of insight about...We thought, ‘How do we get involved, and how can we get engaged in this process?’” said Lourdes Flores, ARISE president.16 Aligned with community residents’ efforts, UTRGV’s inaugural strategic plan articulated its goals to become a leading Hispanic-serving American institution by building a bicultural, bilingual, biliterate infrastructure, and engaging the community through curricular and programmatic strategies. 17 Consistent Leadership Authentic institutionalization of community engagement is often subject to leadership and faculty turnover. UTRGV hopes that faculty champions will rise to positions of university leadership in order to support further institutionalization. How Unidos por RGV is using Community Learning Exchanges at UTRGV to bring community members and faculty to “openly examine their common challenges, collective gifts, and then freely exchange successful approaches and tools that can drive changes within themselves.” 18 This model structures dialogue between faculty and community leaders, allowing both parties to learn about the needs and realities of the other. UTRGV’s Office of Community Engagement and B3 (bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate) Institute are key organizational partners in this process. “I was able to understand the professors and to learn from them, but also we were able to share with them the culture, the colonias, and how we live here,” said Eva Carranza, colonia resident and ARISE volunteer. 6 “It [CLE] situates the power in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the institution,” said Professor Guajardo, director of the B3 Institute. 19 025 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Valuing Community Members as Experts Without shifting institutional practices to ensure consistent relationship- and trust-building, it can be a challenge to get faculty to see community members as having their own expertise. Place-Based, Community-Driven Partnerships T H E U N I V E RS I T Y O F U TA H ’S EMB E D D E D COMMU N I T Y C E N T E R & N E I G H B O R H O O D PA R T N E R S H I P S FRONTIER T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F U TA H 3 What Place-based partnerships, oriented around shared community development goals, can foster ongoing and deep rooted relationships with local community residents. When university centers are physically present in local neighborhoods and meet needs and desires expressed by residents, institutions are better able to meaningfully engage, build trust, and address pressing community needs. This sustained presence creates the conditions for relationships and coalitions to thrive, and enables a deeper understanding of community needs and assets. The University of Utah’s University Neighborhood Partners (UNP) “brings together University and Westside resources in reciprocal learning, action and benefit.” In this “community coming together,” voices that have historically been unheard in Westside decision-making play a central role.20 UNP’s place-based commitment is comprised of over 35 partnerships in schools, community spaces, and non-profits, including the Hartland Center, Our CASA, Westside Leadership Institute (WLI), and the Westside Studio. Who The University of Utah is the flagship institution of higher education in Utah. Located in Salt Lake City, the school is built on a legacy of innovation, collaboration, community engagement, and service. 21 University Neighborhood Partners was developed in the early 2000s as a way to bring together the university and Westside resources.3 Over the course of a decade, Salt Lake City’s minority population practically doubled, rising from 17.4 percent in 1990 to almost 30 percent in 2000, while the University’s student body remained primarily white. 22 At the time, President Bernie Machen realized that “if the university didn’t do a better job of working in the broader community to reduce barriers to higher [education] for first-generation students, the University wasn’t really going to have the student body it needed in twenty to thirty years,” said Sarah Munro, director of University Neighborhood Partners.23 Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Starting with Community-Identified Needs // Any successful partnership has to start by asking if residents want to engage with the university, and if so, around which priorities. This is the only sure way to achieving shared commitment and mutual benefit. Three-Sided Triangle of Engagement // UNP utilizes a three-pronged decision-making and engagement model to include university stakeholders, community organizations, and community residents, ensuring that resident voices are a driver of UNP’s work in the community. Identify the Goal for Engagement // University leadership must articulate how community engagement fits into their vision for the university, as this will be the message communicated to faculty, and it determines the level of legitimacy the initiative will have across the institution. KEY CHALLENGES Culture of Academia The culture of the “academic institution and whether or not and how it values or rewards communityengaged scholarship,” still remains a challenge. 8 Institutional Turnover High rates of staff turnover at the university or among community partners and residents are a constant threat to community-engaged work. Finding ways to build in continuity over time is crucial for the longevity of community-engaged work . Why Seeking to better understand the barriers to higher education facing the surrounding community, President Machen tasked Irene Fisher, special assistant to the president for Campus Community Partnerships, to meet with over 300 community members who live and work in Salt Lake City’s Westside neighborhoods. The goal of her outreach and listening sessions was to see if residents were interested in engaging with The University of Utah and, if so, to determine what the focus of their work together should be.8 Fisher “heard, loud and clear, that if the University wants to be taken seriously, we need to have a physical presence in the neighborhoods with whom we’re partnering.” 24 Thus, UNP created the Hartland Center, located directly in the Westside neighborhood, allowing UNP to be seen as “a bridge and a convener between the neighborhoods and the university in a very equal and balanced way,” said Munro. Power Dynamics “There are very real power differences when [residents are] sitting around the table. Part of our work is to figure out how to facilitate conversations in ways that allow everyone to participate,” said Munro.8 How UNP’s Hartland Partnership Center brings together local nonprofit organizations as well as university students and faculty to help address these community-identified barriers to higher education. The center offers resources that equip Hartland residents with the tools and resources necessary to more fully participate in the broader Salt Lake community. In addition to the Hartland Center’s physical presence within the west side, community members also play a direct and crucial role in decision-making processes. UNP is governed by an advisory board made up of university stakeholders, community organizations, and community residents. The Hartland Partnership Center is overseen by a resident committee that is representative of “the perspectives that reflect who’s living in the neighborhoods,” said Munro. 8 The committee helps guide UNP’s mission by serving as a liaison and advocate for the community, identifying residents’ needs, resources, and strengths.3 027 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Impact Measurement UNP measures its work by tracking how successful and mutuallybeneficial their partnerships are in achieving desired outcomes. It still remains a challenge to measure the process of partner-ship building and collaborative work. 8 Making Public Service a Graduation Requirement TUL ANE UNIVERSIT Y’S PUBLIC SERVICE REQUIREMENT FRONTIER TUL ANE UNIVERSIT Y 4 What Undergraduate academic course requirements are one method for institutionalizing community engagement across disciplines. With a graduation requirement in place, academic forms of community-engaged work are not dependent on administrative priorities or individual faculty members. Community engagement is guaranteed to be a teaching priority every year. 25 Yet, instituting community engagement as a requirement brings its own set of inherent challenges and opportunities. Tulane’s Public Service graduation requirement, implemented in 2006 as the first of its kind, mandates all undergraduate students to take two academic public service courses before graduation. The first course must be completed within the students’ first five semesters, while the second must be completed prior to graduation. 26 This unique requirement is coupled with rich peer- and community-led training through which students are asked to question their own identities and systems of oppression and to enter the community with respect and understanding. Also, Tulane recently instituted a course requirement on race in America. Who Tulane University is a private research institution located in New Orleans, Louisiana, with a mission to “create, communicate and conserve knowledge in order to enrich the capacity of individuals, organizations and communities to think, to learn and to act and lead with integrity and wisdom.” It is the first private research university to make community engagement a curricular requirement, with their students logging around 780,000 hours of service annually.5 Tulane’s Office of Service Learning, now the Center for Public Service, helped shape the 2006 Renewal Plan which envisions Tulane as “a university in service to the public, a university truly committed to building and renewing the communities in which its people live and work.” 6 Tulane has partnered with over 1,300 agencies in the New Orleans area, ranging from local nonprofits and schools to youth organizations and community support groups.5 Several of these agencies provide direct input into the university’s work by serving on the CPS Community Advisory Board. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Reciprocal Desire for Engagement // Community partners emphasized the importance of ensuring a particular community wishes to engage with the university, and also identifying well-respected community partners to build trust.9 Building Capacity & Strategic Relationships // Partnerships among senior faculty and university leadership were instrumental in communicating the value of service learning and in providing the necessary resources to build capacity within the university and its community partners. 3 Leverage Student Interest & Use Service to Reinforce Academic Learning // Students were interested in addressing local issues, and universities should leverage that to provide opportunities that meet student interests, community-identified needs, and academic objectives. 3 KEY CHALLENGES Measurement Impact measurement is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of service learning programs, improving them, and better responding to the needs of the community. Tulane has several different program evaluation measurements in place, but Buberger cites the measurement of community impact as an ongoing challenge. 3 Why In response to the wake of destruction left by Hurricane Katrina in 2006, and with an understanding of the research about the benefits of Service Learning, Tulane University’s administration drastically increased the school’s involvement within the New Orleans community.27 Tulane’s 2006 Renewal Plan highlights the University’s commitment to engaging with New Orleans through its Public Service graduation requirement. Amanda Buberger, assistant director of Tulane’s Center for Public Service (CPS), reflected on how Hurricane Katrina changed the community, “It was a time that the University felt that we could make a much more robust commitment to community engagement and realized the institution’s connectivity to the health of the city and region.” 3 “Tulane did not have a reputation in the past of being engaged in the community until after Katrina; that is when I believe the pivot occurred. Presently, Tulane is heavily engaged in community involvement,” said Earl Williams, community liaison director at Choice Foundation Charter Schools, a key community partner.28 How By the time Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Tulane had developed partnerships across the city, establishing a foundation for service learning courses. Professors’ internal research proved the value of service learning to students, which helped convince university leadership to create a Public Service graduation requirement. University resources and administrative support play essential roles in implementing the school’s requirement. Alumni, grants, and an AmeriCorps VISTA program support this work and help foster relationships across the community. Andreas Hoffmann, executive director of Green Light New Orleans who has worked with over 1200 Tulane members suggests “engaging the students right from the beginning, explaining to the students why this service is crucial for the community, combining an emotional approach with an intellectual approach, engaging students with the staff of the nonprofit, having the professor engaged in the activities as well, and make sure that there is a measurable success and a celebration at the end of the service.” 7 029 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Student Motivation An inherent challenge in instituting a service requirement is that not all students will be equally motivated to participate. “When you’re working in community, the interaction has to be genuine otherwise it could be harmful,” said Buberger. 3 Students’ motivation can be increased through education about the community impact of their work. 30 Redesigning the Core Curriculum BUTLER UNIVERSIT Y’S CURRICUL AR REVISION FRONTIER BUTLER UNIVERSIT Y 5 What Teaching is one of the primary and fundamental functions of institutions of higher education. Student course requirements inherently reflect the curricular values and priorities of a university. Eighty-eight percent of institutions included in this study have a university-wide pedagogy related to community engagement (such as service-learning), but only thirteen institutions have a university-wide course requirement. Butler University’s Indianapolis Community Requirement (ICR) requires all undergraduate students to “take one course in any part of the University that involves active engagement with the Indianapolis community before graduation.” 31 For students entering Butler in Fall 2010 or later, the requirement is based on three student learning outcomes. Students will: 1 Engage in learning that integrates academic content with significant activities alongside Indianapolis community partners. 2 Connect the active learning experience to enlarge their understanding of community and public good in a pluralistic society. Who Butler University is a private institution, located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Butler has a long history of civic engagement, and a well-established commitment to “diversity, personal and social responsibility, the common good, community, and citizenship.” 5 Butler University’s Center for Citizenship and Community (CCC) was founded in 1996 as an “outgrowth of Butler’s role as a founding member of Indiana Campus Compact, an organization of Indiana universities that came together to recognize the value of civic engagement and the responsibility of universities to make connections with their communities.” 5 The CCC “guides, develops and manages servicelearning courses, fosters civic mindedness through inter-college programming, serves as an incubator for civic engagement initiatives, and coordinates Butler’s ICR,” assisting a range of consistent community partners, and addressing varied needs in the community. 32 3 Demonstrate a commitment to ongoing community involvement and citizenship. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Defining Engagement & Articulating Intentions // Institutions should define what terms like civic and community engagement mean for the institution and how they align with its mission and budget. According to Director Braid, “The university better figure out why it’s doing this and what its goals are. If, cynically, the university is trying to make itself look better…[it’s] probably not going to be very helpful.”6 Building Partnerships // Since universities “Don’t have the time, money or energy to reinvent the wheel, they should partner with organizations who are already working in the community,” said Rev. Héctor J. Hernández of Iglesia Nueva Creación. 34 KEY CHALLENGES Time and Commitment Center Director Braid uses a metaphor of “hanging out, hanging on, and giving blood,” to depict the level of effort required to maintain and create trust in partnerships. Why Several factors at Butler catalyzed the creation of the Indianapolis Community Requirement (ICR), including having prior infrastructure in place, support from university leadership, and the opportune timing of curriculum revision. Community-engaged work had been happening at the university since the early 1990s in the form of courses, internships, and practicums, which generated a foundation of faculty invested in the work. Additionally, former Butler University President Bobby Fong (2001–2011), was committed to teaching students the importance of community and aimed for students to understand that, “They are part of those communities, and a good, striving life is involved with understanding yourself as a member of a community, with contributing and taking back from that.” 33 Finally, beginning in January 2004, the university’s core curriculum was going through a revision process, as the practice of community engagement was emerging. These pieces laid the foundation for the Indianapolis Community Requirement. Embedded Mindsets It is possible that a community partner may view student volunteers as “free labor" and that university students and faculty view the community as their “laboratory,” both of which undermine the mutuallybeneficial goal of community engagement.6 How In January of 2004, a Core Curriculum Task Force was created to rethink Butler University’s general education requirements. According to Donald Braid, director of Butler’s Center for Citizenship and Community, the ICR was initially proposed as a service-learning requirement but was then broadened to allow “creativity in terms of all of the ways we engage people in the community.” 6 Butler wants its students to be engaged with their communities in reciprocally valuable ways. 6 The CCC guides, operates, and assesses the ICR, and also provides a variety of resources for faculty members, students, and community partners. To ensure the quality of its courses, an ICR Advisory Committee reviews and approves class proposals; in order for a course to be approved, it must be successful in addressing student learning outcomes and facilitating community engagement. 6 031 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Institutional Capacity It is important to understand the resources and capabilities of an institution before starting a community engagement program, in order to manage expectations with community partners, and for the program to be sustainable. 6 Funding Community-Based Research T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F U TA H ’S C OM M U N I T Y- B A S E D R E S E A R C H G R A N T P RO G R A M FRONTIER T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F U TA H 6 What Community-engaged research is still an emerging field of practice in many academic and research disciplines. While 65 percent of the universities sampled in this study fund research for community engagement, funding opportunities are typically modest, ranging from $1,500 to $5,000. The University of Utah’s Community-Based Research Grant provides up to $20,000 in funding to support collaborative research that involves both the university and local, regional, and/ or statewide community partners to address a community need. The grant prioritizes proposals “that exhibit evidence of strong collaboration with community partners, potential to build or strengthen cross-disciplinary research partnerships within the university and/or community, and the possibility that the work could lead to extramural funding.” 35 Who The University of Utah is located in Salt Lake City and boasts “a legacy of innovation, collaboration, community engagement, and service,” with a longstanding commitment to the its surrounding neighborhoods. 36 The Community-Based Research (CBR) Grant Program is administered through the University Research Committee (URC), which is housed in the Office of the Vice President for Research.37 The Community Research Collaborative began as group of cross-disciplinary faculty and community partners convened by The University of Utah’s University Neighborhood Partners (UNP), who met over the course of several years (2007–2009) to identify priority areas of institutional change needed to support faculty engagement at the institutional level, and to act as a structure that could support and evaluate proposals for community-based research. Notable outcomes of these initial efforts were the research and publication of the Guidelines for Community-Based Research, mentoring initiatives for engaged faculty, and a set of recommendations to university leadership regarding faculty support. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Centralized, Institutional Funding // “The fact that the funding came from the President’s Office and goes through the Vice President for Research gives it a kind of institutional legitimacy and permanence that has been critical,” said Munro.9 Time Commitment Required to Build Partnerships // Karen Tao, researcher and assistant professor at The University of Utah, commented, “It takes so long for communities and universities to build a relationship, and that relationship building is essential for anything else to go well.” It is critical that the funders of CBR understand and value the time needed to build relationships. 40 KEY CHALLENGES Valuing Community Outcomes This type of research and funding often runs into the inertia of what traditionally counts as legitimate research and outcomes. Shifting perspectives to prioritize community outcomes alongside more traditional university results means according equal value to both community expertise and academic knowledge. Why How The seeds for the CBR grant originated in 2006 through a facilitated discussion where faculty ref lected that there was not a strong connection between their academic work and community-based participatory research that is central to university-community outreach initiatives. There was a gap in funding that prohibited faculty in leveraging research to address community needs. The office of the vice president for research manages the CBR grant, “so that it would be university-wide, not just through UNP,” said Munro.9 Allocating funding through the office of the vice president for research incorporated the grant into annual funding for the university and made it accessible to faculty across disciplines, providing “a chance to educate other people on the committees about what CBR is,” said Munro. 8 The director of UNP, Rosemarie Hunter, included a request for a $20,000 CBR grant in UNP’s 2009 budget proposal. The funds were requested to be sent directly to the office of the vice president for research so it could be managed with other university-wide faculty grants, in order to legitimize and institutionalize the grant. The grant is administered by the University Research Committee (URC), who works to ensure that the research is mutually-beneficial, actively involves community members, and incorporates high quality research methods. 8 Barbara Brown, UNP’s 2007 community scholar-in-residence, spent the year interviewing and gathering information from faculty and community partners involved with UNP to create the Guidelines for Community-Based Research Partnerships booklet, which specifies The University of Utah’s requirements for CBR.39 Sarah Munro, Director of UNP, explained that the Community-Based Research Grant is “intended to catalyze faculty to apply for larger amounts of funding,” 38 as well as to “lead to social change in ways that are responsive to community needs and student/faculty professional commitments to research.” 8 033 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Garnering Support Across Disciplines & Defining CBR “Working across disciplines has been a challenge and tends to be more restricted to individual faculty who already have a community-engaged lens on their work,” said Munro.9 Moreover, due to differences in research practices across disciplines, it is difficult to create a shared definition of CBR or champion its value to more traditional academic departments. Redesigning Promotion and Tenure V I R G I N I A C OM M O N W E A LT H U N I V E R S I T Y ’S C OM M U N I T Y- E N GAG E D FAC U LT Y C R I T E R I A FRONTIER V I R G I N I A C O M M O N W E A LT H U N I V E R S I T Y 7 What Fostering mutually-transformative relationships between universities and local communities requires the fostering of substantive shifts in institutional culture and academic practices. An emerging strategy some schools are using to both validate and incentivize community-engaged research, teaching, and service, is to restructure faculty reward frameworks so that they explicitly recognize community-engaged work and value the knowledge and experience of neighborhood partners. Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) recently revised its promotion and tenure policy to incorporate community engagement language and is now working to institutionalize the practice across its academic departments and schools. Who VCU is a public research institution located in Richmond, Virginia, founded with a unique focus on the unmet higher education and social needs of its surrounding community. 41 In 2006, the Division of Community Engagement was established to “mobilize university-community partnerships that generate innovative solutions to societal challenges and prepare the engaged citizens of tomorrow.” 42 The division provides faculty support, community resources, and service opportunities for students. The infrastructure established through the Division of Community Engagement served as the foundation that enabled VCU to update its promotion and tenure policy to include engagement. The division is now working to align all of VCU’s schools with the revised 2013 promotion and tenure policy. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Power & Influence of Accreditation // As the influence of the Carnegie Foundation’s classification suggests, accrediting bodies have the unique ability to incentivize university leadership to prioritize community engagement as well as provide objective feedback and recommended next steps. Leverage “Champions” // VCU utilized a faculty governance group to build internal support and capacity across departments, schools, and administrative units. Need for Capacity-Building Alongside Policy Change // On top of prior infrastructure, workshops, trainings, and other capacity-building enterprises, it is necessary to build an institution-wide understanding of community engagement, and to ensure that best practices are employed when conducting research, teaching, and service in local communities. KEY CHALLENGES Shared Language A shared understanding of terminology needs to be developed across the university, from medicine and business to the arts and sciences. Why President Michael Rao charged a 19-member ad hoc committee to review and revise the promotion and tenure policies of the university in fall 2011 to achieve VCU’s goal of becoming a national model for community engagement, as outlined in its 2006 Strategic Plan. The formation of this committee was a direct response to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s recommendation to address VCU’s promotion and tenure policies in order to maintain its Community Engagement Classification. 43 Recognition of community engagement was not the only impetus, but it catalyzed university leadership to take up the charge. Provost and vice president for academic affairs, Beverly Warren insisted that the revised policies explicitly reflect VCU’s current strategic plan, which lists community engagement as a pillar, so that the general criteria for promotion and tenure would include community engagement language. 44 Time Cultural change in institutions takes time. While key champions, especially among leadership, are necessary to institutionalize community engagement into promotion and tenure, a bottomup approach is also needed to build support among faculty, department chairs and deans for community-engaged research, teaching, and service. How Through a series of convenings and external consultants, the ad hoc committee came to a consensus that community engagement language would be integrated into the university’s three general promotion and tenure criteria—scholarship, teaching, and service—using definitions previously approved by the president’s cabinet in 2013. The Division of Community Engagement continues to work with all the university’s schools and departments to update and align their unit-level policies with the 2013 university-wide policy. The division is also working to build capacity among scholars, review committees, and department chairs to understand and articulate the value of community engagement through workshops, trainings, and funding.9 For example, the Division of Community Engagement hosts VCU’s two-day Community Engagement Institute annually each May, an event which brings together faculty members, community partners, and graduate students “to build a fundamental understanding of the principles of community engagement in the 21st century.” 45 Photo by Thomas Kojcsich, VCU University Relations 035 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Buy-In Across Disciplines Motivating varied academic departments to understand and embrace community engagement criteria for faculty promotion and tenure that go beyond the traditional measures of achievement (e.g., peer-reviewed publications in refereed journals and prestigious funding awards from grantmaking bodies) can be extremely difficult. Buying, Hiring, and Purchasing Local JO H N S H O PK I N S U N I V E RS I T Y ’S H O PK I N S LO C A L I N I T I AT I V E FRONTIER JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSIT Y 8 What Universities’ procurement and hiring policies often have a disproportionate influence upon the economic wellbeing of local residents and businesses. Johns Hopkins University and Health System are leveraging their role as the largest private anchor institution in Baltimore through an initiative called HopkinsLocal, seeking to “create a sustained force for jobs for minority- and womenowned businesses and residents of Baltimore’s most distressed neighborhoods.” 46 Launched in 2015, HopkinsLocal aims for “40 percent of newly hired personnel for targeted positions to come from Baltimore neighborhoods in selected zip codes by 2018.” These selected zip codes represent “the city’s most distressed communities.” 47 Additionally, Johns Hopkins has committed to an “increase in spending in targeted categories with local businesses by 11 percent.” 6 As of the 2017 Progress Report, HopkinsLocal has surpassed its goals, reaching 45 percent of hires in the targeted categories and a 23 percent increase in spending locally. 3 Who Johns Hopkins University, located in Baltimore, Maryland, is “America’s first research university...founded on the principle that by pursuing big ideas and sharing what we learn, we make the world a better place.” 3 Johns Hopkins Health System was created in parallel with the university, by the request of the first benefactor and namesake of the two institutions, Johns Hopkins. Together these anchor institutions employ more than 52,700 people in Baltimore, making Johns Hopkins the city’s largest employer. Additionally, Johns Hopkins generated $4.7 billion in economic output in the Baltimore area during the 2014 fiscal year. 48 Alongside HopkinsLocal, Johns Hopkins University and Health System worked with twenty-five other prominent Baltimore companies to establish BLocal. Each company in BLocal pledged to “hire more local and minority owned firms and workers,” accumulating to a total of $69 million in jobs, contracts, goods, and services. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Leadership Support // Patterson emphasized the role of President Daniels’ position in HopkinsLocal , stating that “He’s […] able to keep everyone accountable due to his title and his executive role.” Customer Relationship // Local business owners commented on the importance of developing relationships with university staff, and added that when there is staff turnover, the loss of relationships, accountability, and preference can significantly impact a local business’s revenue. 51 Small Change is Better Than No Change // Patterson believes that all universities are capable of hiring, buying, and building locally—even if it begins with hiring a single local caterer for one event.9 KEY CHALLENGES Institutional Fatigue Patterson shared that when searching for a local business, faculty and staff may be challenged to find something that meets the new procurement commitment. “They’ll just throw up their hands... the challenge here is institutional fatigue and ensuring that everyone maintains some degree of hope that we can be successful in this endeavor,” she said.9 Why The effort to improve economic inclusion policies at Johns Hopkins began with the start of President Ron Daniels’ tenure in 2009. Daniels “has made it a priority to strengthen the university community’s ties to Baltimore through meaningful, deliberate, and strategic actions in collaboration with other local stakeholders.” 49 How Developed from community input and insights, HopkinsLocal is a way to “not only carry over the work we were already doing, but also to demonstrate to the community that this is a sustained commitment we are making to the community to create jobs,” said Kylie Patterson, director of economic inclusion at Johns Hopkins. 50 Support from senior leadership and the commitment from Johns Hopkins to publish their The shooting of Freddie Gray, and the ensuing riots in April of 2015, was a turning point for the university and its commitment to working to improve its relationship with its city. In community consultations, residents identified jobs as an important issue area that Johns Hopkins, as the largest private employer in Baltimore City, could address. The HopkinsLocal initiative began later that same year. 9 goals and progress reports on a regular basis have helped ensure accountability and transparency. While initial goals were met, Johns Hopkins is still in the process of finding additional ways to assist their employees, ensuring that they have programs and resources to support their education, families, and careers, so that “the University and Health System supports their employees—the whole employee— At the same time, university leadership has recognized that anchor institutions have a responsibility to address community needs in transparent and accountable ways. As the largest private anchor institution in the City of Baltimore, Johns Hopkins acknowledges its potential to be a part of the solution, and “embraces our role as an economic engine to create lasting opportunities.” 3 beyond just their employment, but also in their lives outside of the university and health system,” said Patterson.9 037 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Availability of Resources “Unfortunately institutions, especially institutions of higher education, have a history of exclusion and a history of prejudice. To redress this and advance the work requires full time staff who are focused on this challenge and issue,” said Patterson.9 Establishing Community-Wide Anchor Partnerships A U G S B U R G U N I V E R S I T Y & T H E C E N T R A L C O R R I D O R A N C H O R PA R T N E R S H I P FRONTIER AUGSBURG UNIVERSIT Y 9 What The Central Corridor Anchor Partnership (CCAP) is a place-based collaboration among several anchor institutions in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota with the shared goal of improving the local economy, health, vitality, and growth of their community. Located along the Metro Green Line in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, CCAP is “comprised of colleges, universities, hospitals, and health care organizations,” each of which is invested in its “physical infrastructure to serve patients, students, and employees along the Central Corridor.” 52 The CCAP has three central goals: 1. To increase the amount of local purchasing made by anchor institutions; 2. To increase transit use among anchor employees; and 3. To increase anchor institution employment from central corridor zip codes in order to achieve racial diversity. 3 To form the CCAP, Augsburg University partnered with ten other local anchor institutions, comprising “15 zip codes, 60,000 employees, and 112,000 students with $2.5 billion in annual spending.” 3 Who Augsburg University is located in the diverse Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis with a 38 percent immigrant population.53 Founded by Haugean Norwegian immigrants, Augsburg has been committed to engaging with their community in mutually beneficial ways for almost 150 years, seeking to fulfill its mission to educate students as “informed citizens, thoughtful stewards, critical thinkers and responsible leaders.” 54 Augsburg’s president, Paul Pribbenow, uses the phrase “21st century urban settlement” to serve as a metaphor for the community-engaged work that Augsburg does with its local neighborhood. 55 The term refers to the “settlement house movement” pioneered by Jane Addams in the early 1900s, when houses in industrializing urban areas were created to serve and support their local communities. While the 20th century system of settlement houses no longer exists, Pribbenow describes Augsburg, and other community-driven institutions, as the equivalent of “21st century urban settlements,” due to their orientation towards public service, echoing the social mission of settlement houses. 8 Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Strategic Communication / To ensure that all levels of staff are aware of the goals of the anchor commitment, it is key that high-level leaders communicate their priorities. 3 Working Across Diverse Sectors // Working with 14 institutions from different sectors, it can make it challenging to identify shared goals and interests.9 Since each of the “initiatives do not touch every anchor equally...each anchor must understand how their individual strategic mission is being advanced.”3 Setting Quantifiable Objectives // This helps keep institutions accountable for their goals, providing a method by which to check progress on stated targets. 3 KEY CHALLENGES Culture of Higher Education Institutions of higher education often assume they have “the answers to every problem.”8 This “arrogance of the academy” does not acknowledge the inherent expertise and knowledge within communities. Why While Augsburg University has been committed to serving the public good since its inception, President Pribbenow cited Dr. Joel Torstenson, founder of Augsburg’s Department of Sociology, as having catalyzed the vision that defines the university’s approach today. In 1967, Dr. Torstenson gave an address to the Augsburg faculty that called for “the integration of the university’s academic mission with its urban location” in ways that infused its commitment to the city into everything the college said and did from then on. 6 Out of this continuing commitment, Augsburg helped establish the CCAP. In 2006, the Metro Green Line connecting the “Central Corridor” (Downtown Minneapolis and Downtown St. Paul) was approved, and the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative was founded with “a belief in light rail’s potential for benefiting the people and places closest to the line,” by creating access to regional opportunities. 56 The collaborative worked with institutional stakeholders to “encourage collaboration, planning, and investment beyond the rail,” and brought together various leaders, including President Pribbenow, who later formed the Central Corridor Anchor Partnership. 10 How Through an initial study conducted by the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative, three main areas were identified as the focus of CCAP—transit, procurement, and workforce. 11 TRANSIT The 2014 opening of the Metro Green Line served as a catalyst for community-oriented work. Augsburg has implemented a variety of initiatives to encourage use of the new transit, including a toolkit, surveying employees about how to improve pass use, and discounted passes for students and employees. 3 PROCUREMENT The CCAP created an inclusionary policy for members to consider adding contract language on projects of $250,000 or more that would commit the contractor to hire local-, woman-, or minority-owned firms for a minimum of 10 percent of the total project cost.3 WORKFORCE Three key programs were developed to help employment in the community: the Central Corridor (C3) Fellows program, the Nursing Initiative, and the Scrubs Camp.57 Over the past six years, the Central Corridor neighborhoods have already seen the impact on their community, demonstrating the positive influence anchor institutions can have by leveraging shared resources in place-based collaboration. 039 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Including Community in Decision Making Steve Peacock, community relations director for Augsburg University, commented on the need for CCAP to “make sure that community voice is part of the decision making…[so that the] efforts and the initiatives of the Central Corridor partnership are really responding to community needs.” 11 Measuring and Reporting Impact A RIZO N A S TAT E U N I V E RS I T Y ’S SO C I A L EMB E D D E D N ES S RE P O RT FRONTIER A R I Z O N A S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y 10 What Institutional measurement of community engagement is an emerging and challenging practice for universities engaging in this work. Arizona State University (ASU) is working to define, measure and communicate their work with the broader community. The ASU Office of University Initiatives conducts an annual Social Embeddedness Survey to “inventory the diverse community-engaged activities occurring across every facet of the university.” This survey is used to inform and frame an annual Social Embeddedness Report and conference.58 For ASU, “social embeddedness” is a commitment to community partnerships and an accountability to the broader context in which the university operates. Central to ASU’s charter is a commitment to be responsible for the economic, social, cultural, and overall health of the communities it serves. Who ASU is a public research university located in Tempe, Arizona, recognized by the U.S. News & World Report as the country’s “most innovative school.” In ten years, the university has more than doubled its research funding and is one of the fastest-growing research enterprises in the United States.59 Current President Michael M. Crow has committed the university to working on social embeddedness by pursuing what he calls the “New American University,” an institution that combines the highest levels of academic excellence, inclusiveness to a broad demographic, and maximum societal impact.60 A range of models for engagement, including community-based teaching and learning, civic engagement, community-engaged research, knowledge mobilization, capacity-building, and place-based partnerships, are used to live out this commitment.61 In the 2018 fiscal year, thirty-nine academic colleges and non-academic units were surveyed, and twenty-five colleges reported their community engagement efforts across the university in the Social Embeddedness Survey. Frontiers LESSONS FOR THE FIELD Exploratory Study // Start with an exploratory approach. The inaugural Social Embeddedness Survey was closer to an inventory in nature, compiling information about how faculty and staff define, talk about and work in community engagement, which then further defined Social Embeddedness. 6 Leveraging Data to Develop Networks // Requiring each school to identify where community-engaged work is happening and what it looks like has enabled an exchange of best practices, challenges, and strategies among faculty and community partners, both formally and informally through the Social Embeddedness Network Conference. Shift in Data Collection // Move the focus from evaluating and tracking partnerships and outcomes rather than hours and participants. KEY CHALLENGES Institutional Commitment The work can only progress so far without having a permanent administrative position that touches and reaches across research units, academic units, and administrative units to institutionalize these efforts within the institution’s academic structures. Why In his 2002 inaugural speech, President Crow laid out eight design aspirations for Arizona State University, one of which was social embeddedness—that “ASU connects with communities through mutually beneficial partnerships.” 62 Information being collected for the Social Embeddedness Survey serves several purposes: 1 To better understand and describe how ASU is delivering on its charter commitment, to learn more about ASU’s strengths and where to focus efforts as it expands, 2 To communicate with external stakeholders, to support faculty- and staff-engagement across the university in aligning around social embeddedness, and 3 To compile data for the Carnegie Classification application and the president’s Higher Education Community-Service Honor Roll. Faculty Incentives Faculty buy-in for data collection is crucial. Without aligning promotion and tenure policies with the university’s public mission statement and charter commitments, buy-in can be uncertain. 6 How Under Crow’s leadership, the Office of University Initiatives (UI) developed the University Innovation Fellowship, a thirteen-month program designed to engage early- and mid-career professionals to advance the New American University-model. As a UI Fellow, Beagley was tasked with restructuring the pilot data compiled for the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Classification in order to share it with stakeholders.63 Beagley reorganized the data to capture the community need that each instance of engagement was intended to tackle, making the data more accessible and useful for external stakeholders. Since 2015, Beagley has served as director of social embeddedness for ASU, working to develop and refine methods for building a shared understanding of social embeddedness across the university, and collecting data on it.6 Beagley has been working to include additional schools and units in the survey, particularly those whose engagement work is abundant but unrecognized. “We have to continually showcase exemplars of ‘social embeddedness’ to strengthen and reinforce our institutional [culture] of partnering all the while making space for myriad interpretations and operationalizations of that design aspiration,” said Lindsey Beagley, director of social embeddeness.6 0 41 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Community Partner Metrics A method is needed for measuring how well the requirements and expectations of partners are being met. “A major voice that’s missing from our institutional self-evaluation is whether the community partners feel like they’re getting benefit out of a ‘mutually-beneficial’ partnership,” said Beagley. 6 CONCLUSION The goal of this Field Guide is both empirical and normative. The hope is that by surveying key trends and promising frontiers in the field of university-community engagement and partnership, we can better understand what defines the movement today, as well as how to improve and advance it. What have we learned [Figure Nine]? 1 What began thirty years ago as a movement of colleges and universities re-committing them- selves to their public purposes has matured into a fully-fledged field of institutional practice; 2 As this field has taken shape a consensus is emerging around the primary ways in which schools express their commitments to this practice, through organizational assurances (mission statements, strategic plans, presidential leadership), core academic functions (teaching, research, service), and institutional operations (hiring, procurement, investment). With the increasingly sought after Carnegie Classification, we also see consensus growing around a fledgling standards movement. 3 Despite the high degree of coalescence, the field is far from static. There are numerous fron- tiers of practice where universities pioneer at the boundaries of the field as well as places where the discipline as a whole continues to struggle to progress towards long-standing ambitions and ideals. 4 Zooming out and taking an evolutionary view of the university-community partnership movement over the past generation sheds light on where work remains for creating equitable and enduring partnerships of mutual benefit over generations to come. T H R E E WAV E S O F U N I V E R S I T Y- C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S H I P S We can discern successive phases of development which define and inform the state of the field today, and are likely to shape it in the future. These can be thought of as three “waves” of institutional development [Figure Ten]. First Wave: Civic Engagement Starting in the 1980s, the first wave of development could be described as a reawakening and recommitment among college and university leaders to the public and democratic purposes of higher education. With its roots in the social activism and national service movements of the 1960s and 1970s, civic engagement's galvanizing moment occurred when a coalition of university presidents formed a national compact to reclaim the historic mission of higher education by “preparing the next generation of citizens to achieve public goals and solve public problems.” Under the banner of Campus Compact, these leaders issued a challenge to their colleagues around the country “to make civic and community engagement an institutional priority.” 64 U N I V E R S I T Y- C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S H I P S: K E Y E L E M E N T S & T R E N D S Organizational Commitment Core Functions Emerging Practice Service Learning TE ACHING Degree & Concentrations Curricular Revision Centralized Pedagogy Faculty Funding MISSION S TAT E M E N T S RESEARCH Promotion & Tenure Revision Capacity-Building Central Office & Personnel S T R AT E G I C P L A N Graduation Requirement SERVICE Embedded & ResidentDirected Partnership Models Impact Measurement & Reporting Anchor Identity Hiring & Procurement Commitments O P E R AT I O N S Responsible Endowments & Local Investments Land Trusts Community Benefit Agreements figure nine By all accounts, the challenge has been met. Today, Campus Compact claims an active membership of over a thousand universities. The vast majority of colleges and universities appearing in the research for this Field Guide have dedicated programming to promote student volunteerism and civic engagement. What had become a muted ideal within college education—the training of students for citizenship and public service—had once again become a priority, thanks to efforts like Campus Compact. a host of social initiatives like the National and Community Service Act and the Corporation for National Service, both of which authorized funding for universities to support service-learning programming. Campus Compact itself launched initiatives that supported the growth of service learning at its member institutions over this same period. Judging by this research, most colleges and universities integrated service learning, or its equivalent, into their curricula within the past twenty years. As the case study snapshots of Tulane and Butler Universities show, some schools have gone even further by making community service a graduation requirement. Moreover, among the 100 institutions surveyed for this Field Guide, 90 percent have a centralized, community-engaged pedagogy and 95 percent have established centers dedicated to community-based teaching and research that are an average of eighteen years old or less. Meanwhile, 66 percent of the universities in this sample have funding opportunities available for students and/or faculty interested in community-engaged research. Second Wave: Service Learning If a rekindled commitment to educating students to be citizens was the hallmark of the first wave, linking that commitment to the academic goals of the university through what has become known as “service learning” became the hallmark of the second phase of institutional development. Drawing upon educational theory dating back to John Dewey, the modern service learning movement reflected broader national activity across all levels of American education throughout the 1990s. By the 2000s, service learning had exploded on campuses across the country, thanks in large part to 043 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP Indeed, making mutually-beneficial partnerships the hallmark of the next wave is where the most remains to be done, and is most urgently needed. Despite progress on other fronts, questions of sustaining true community partnership built upon equity, inclusion, and even, in some cases, reparations, remain pressing at most institutions and within most communities. These are not simple challenges. Establishing a central office or pedagogy, obtaining a Carnegie Classification, or even adopting an anchor mission are steps in the right direction, but any veteran leader in the field will tell you they are not enough on their own. It takes more than rhetorical commitments, no matter how well-intended or passionately made. It requires more than creating infrastructure and providing resources, as critical as those efforts may be. It requires infusing the ethic of university-community engagement and partnership throughout the institution. That requires leadership at the highest levels (from trustees and presidents to provosts and deans), who are committed to this ethic as a top priority beyond their own tenure. Finally, success requires that This research demonstrates a number of ways in which universities are taking up their role as local anchors and leveraging their resources to address community needs. It is measurable in the number of schools that have formalized these commitments in their strategic plans. Schools such as Johns Hopkins and Augsburg Universities have revised procurement and employment policies to give priority to local buying and hiring. We can see it in the way some schools, including Virginia Commonwealth University, have redesigned their promotion and tenure guidelines in order to both incentivize and legitimize community-engaged research. figure ten DIF F U SION OF A D OP T ION B Y WAV E First Wave Second Wave 19 8 0 s – P R E S E N T 2000s–PRESE NT Early Majority Early Majority Late Majority THE FIELD IS HERE Early Adoptors Innovators LO OK ING A HE A D TO T HE NE X T WAV E Most colleges and universities now embrace the importance of community engagement and partnership today. The issue tends not to be whether to engage, but how. How can colleges and universities engage in ways that meet scholarly missions and academic standards, and simultaneously contribute to the needs of their local communities—that is, in ways that are genuinely mutually beneficial? Laggards CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Early Adoptors Innovators THE FIELD IS HERE FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Third Wave: Anchor Institutions Over the past decade, yet another wave of institutional development has emerged. The trademark of this third wave is an attempt to integrate, and to some extent redirect, community engagement and partnership across the entire institution. This can be seen in efforts linking service to teaching and research. It can also be seen in the widening of emphasis from student-centered service learning programming to include the business operations of the institution itself. Tied to their immediate surroundings by mission, investments, employees, vendors, physical assets, and the like, there is a growing acknowledgment and embrace by colleges and universities of an “anchor mission.” This is a recognition that universities are both impacted by and disproportionately equipped to impact the long-term wellbeing of the communities in which they reside. SERVICE LE ARNING Conclusion schools share power with the communities in which they reside. Less than one-third of the universities in this research included community stakeholders in their governance structures. communities, as well as the people and institutions occupying them. As urban populations rise, so do levels of inequality, segregation, and displacement. It would be hard to overstate the impact of colleges and universities on their surrounding communities. The stakes are high. Colleges and universities serve as community educators, employers, economic engines, purveyors of health care, land developers, and reservoirs of subject matter expertise. The roles of our institutions of higher education are critical to how and whether we can create successful solutions to the challenges of our time. The call to action proposed by this Field Guide is this: The place for universities and their leaders to begin the search for those solutions, and the place where they can most immediately demonstrate their public value, is at their doorstep. Beyond that threshold, colleges and universities are uniquely equipped to support the diversity of people, places, and organizations that make up the human ecology of their local communities. By making mutually-beneficial partnerships a hallmark of their community engagement, our institutions of higher education can make enormous contributions to the cultivation of cities in which all who reside can thrive. For the faculty and university leaders reading this, as well as for their local community stakeholders, we end with a question: How is your university answering this call? The practice of community outreach continues to develop and expand. All our findings indicate that urban university-community partnerships benefit the well-being of our urban Third Wave Next Wave 2 010 s – P R E S E N T 2020 s & B E YO N D Early Majority Laggards Early Adoptors Late Majority Innovators Laggards THE FIELD IS HERE Late Majority ANCHOR INSTITUTION 045 FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S There may be some universities who are able to accomplish all that is required, but for the field as a whole to succeed, it will require more than any single institution can ultimately achieve on their own. In the words of one expert, “...true compatibility between the higher education mission and community partnerships requires some change in the functions of institutions of higher education, accrediting institutions, academic journals, and the many other policy-setting entities in the academy.” 4 In other words, the future of the field will depend in great measure upon whether the wider ecosystem of higher education in the U.S. comes to prioritize it. This includes support from the full range of state and federal government and policy-making entities, and also from the multitude of philanthropic, advocacy, and community-development organizations, both national and local. The future of the field will also likely come to rely upon the tools of information and communication technology to support and inform collaborative, community problem solving. All these considerations will be crucial to the field over the next decade. E Q U I TA B L E PA RT NER SHIP ? FRAMEWORK and Recommendations ADVANCING PRACTICE This section of the Field Guide provides a stepwise framework to assist colleges and universities in evaluating their current answer to this call, and how they might improve going forward. In this way, the Field Guide is intended to be more than a research report, but a ready resource for all those interested in strengthening their home institution’s commitment to and practice of university-community partnerships, as well as for those working to deepen and expand the impact of the field as a whole. Designed as a workbook, the Framework is organized into five steps by which practitioners can: 1 Conduct an internal audit of existing practices and locate themselves within the field of their peers 2 Establish institutional goals to improve upon existing practice 3 Identify existing resources to draw upon and challenges to address in order to accomplish their goals 4 Learn and build upon emerging standards of practice within the wider field, and 5 Develop strategies for successful implementation Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Classification and Other Resources The Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement is an elective award to which institutions may voluntarily apply. The classification requires universities to describe the nature and extent of their community engagement efforts. Presently, however, it does not allow for open and accessible comparison and learning across institutions of higher education. This Field Guide meets this need and its Framework can be used to supplement efforts by colleges and universities to apply for the Carnegie Classification. In this way, the Framework seeks to complement a variety of existing resources and organizations that readers may wish to consult: Campus Compact’s Civic Action Plans // The National Assessment of Community Service and Engagement // The National Inventory for Institutional Infrastructure on Community Engagement // The Netter Center Community Partnerships // The Democracy Collaborative and the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities jointly sponsored Anchor Dashboard Learning Cohort // Anchor Institution Task Force For a more comprehensive list of existing resources see the Community Wealth Building website’s section on university-community partnerships. 0 47 ADVANCING PRACTICE Crucially, the framework is intended to be undertaken together with multiple institutional stakeholders and community partners. Therefore, this tool was not created to be completed in one sitting, or conceived for a single context. STEP ONE Evaluate Practices — University-community partnerships exhibit a high degree of variation across and within institutions due to the significant influence of local history and context. This research identified several spectrums of practice around which partnerships typically vary. The majority of initiatives, programs, and even entire institutions can be located somewhere along each of the following spectrums. We recommend this exercise when auditing current practice and comparing it to that of peer institutions. Use the following spectrums to see where your institution and its initiatives fall. FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S PRI O RITI ES Why are community partnerships a priority for your institution? S T U D E N T FOC US 05 04 03 REC I PROC I T Y 02 01 00 COMMU N IT Y F OC US 01 02 Disciplines-based research and teaching 03 04 05 Interdisciplinary work that prioritizes community needs G EOG R A PH I C SCO PE How does your institution define its local community? N E I G H BO RH OO D 05 04 03 cit y 02 region 01 s tat e 00 n at i o n 01 02 I N T E RN AT I O N A L 03 04 Hyperlocal 05 Global I S SU E / PL AC E COMMITME N T Is your institution (or its key initiatives/programs) focused primarily on a specific societal issue or place? I S SU E 05 04 BOT H 03 02 01 00 PL AC E 01 Engagement that prioritizes societal challenges, detached from a specific geography 02 03 04 05 Place-based commitment, where the focus of work may shift over time Framework & Recommendations Each initiative, program, or institution can be placed somewhere along each of the following spectrums. LE A D E RS H I P Who at your institution leads community engagement efforts and/or forms partnerships? FAC U LT Y/S TA FF 05 04 school or depts. 03 02 01 m u lt i p l e d e p t s . 00 01 LE A D E RS H I P central office 02 03 05 Senior Leadership E VA LUAT E PR ACT ICE S I N TEG R ATI O N How integrated are community engagement efforts across different academic departments and administrative units? D EC E N T R A LIZE D 05 04 03 CO H O RT S 02 01 Faculty and staff working independently 00 C E N T R A LIZE D 01 02 03 04 05 Administrator that manages community partnerships Centers, initiatives E N GAG EME N T MO D E L How do community members and organizations engage with your institution? K N OW LE DG E D E LI V E RY 05 04 03 02 CO N SU LTAT I O N 01 00 Distribution of university knowledge and expertise 01 CO - C RE AT I O N 02 03 04 05 Shared learning and collaborative decision making 0 49 STEP ONE Individuals 04 STEP T WO Set Goals — With an understanding of where your institution sits within variations of common practice, below are a series of goal-setting questions derived from this research. These prompts can help shape community-engaged programs and initiatives for your institution’s particular context. Use this worksheet to identify areas where your institution can improve upon existing practice, as well as how you will measure and evaluate success. FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S I N S TITU TI O N A L GOA L S What are your institution’s goals for community engagement? These goals may already be outlined in your institution’s strategic plan or public mission statement. If these goals are not already established, shared goals may be identified by facilitating a process for stakeholder engagement, with components such as community-wide listening sessions and collaborative planning workshops.1 COMMU N IT Y GOA L S What are local community residents’ and organizations’ goals for engaging with your institution? Understanding your local community’s goals for working together is an essential undertaking that should happen before starting any work. Is there a community that wants to work with your institution? Who are the trusted organizations and individuals that you should engage with? A variety of engagement methods may be used to identify community goals, including individual interviews, listening sessions and other creative methodologies. 2 S H A RE D GOA L S Where is there overlap? After clarifying the university’s and community’s goals (independently) for a partnership, identify common issues and geographies. Mutual Benefit 1 Community Learning Exchanges, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, p. 24 2 University Neighborhood Partners, University of Utah, p. 26 Framework & Recommendations IMPAC T What kind of change do you hope to see? Change or “impact” may be social, academic, cultural, political, or economic in nature. Establishing a desired outcome(s) will help to further refine the goals established previously. I N T H E COM M U N I T Y COM M ENT S SOCIAL Does this partnership intend to influence social dynamics in the local community? Or between the university and local community? C U LT U R E Does this partnership intend to influence the culture of university-community relationships? Does it intend to uplift under-told narratives or perspectives from the local community? POLITICAL Does this partnership intend to influence social dynamics in the local community? E CO N OM I C Does this partnership intend to affect economic and/or development in the local community? C U LT U R E POLITICAL Does this partnership intend to influence internal university policies (ie. promotion and tenure, purchasing, hiring, etc.)? AC A D EM I C Does your institution intend to change student course requirements, research goals, or teaching methods? E CO N OM I C Does this partnership intend to affect economic policies or funding at the institution (ie. purchasing, hiring, endowments, research funding,etc.)? ME ASU REME N T & E VA LUATI O N How will you measure these changes? How will you ensure your institution meets its goal(s)? Measurement and evaluation of community engagement remains an ongoing challenges for institutions of higher education. Crafting specific goals (above) helps identify impact metrics that reflect achievement of those goals. COMMU N I T Y M E T R I C 1 U N I V E RS I T Y M E T R I C 1 COMMU N I T Y M E T R I C 2 U N I V E RS I T Y M E T R I C 2 COMMU N I T Y M E T R I C 3 U N I V E RS I T Y M E T R I C 3 0 51 SET GOALS Does this partnership intend to influence the internal culture of the university? STEP TWO AT T H E U N I V ER SI T Y STEP THREE Name Resources — In order to advance your institution’s practice, it will be necessary to identify existing resources to draw upon as well as possible challenges that will have to be met. Assess your institution’s and local communities’ existing and potential resources using the following questions. S TRE N GTH S What resources are currently accessible at your institution that contribute to community-engaged practices and partnerships? What unique resources can your institution draw upon that are not otherwise available in the local community? FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S H UM A N S PAC E Are there staff, faculty, students, or alumni dedicated to community-engaged work and/or partnerships at your institution? FINANCIAL Does your institution have physical space(s) that can be used for community meetings or other activities? DATA & T E C H N O LO GY Are there existing funding opportunities for community engagement and/or partnerships at your institution? R E S E A RC H What data and technology resources does your institution have available that could help inform or meet the goals of the local community? COMMU N I T Y PA R T N E R(S) Are there research centers and/or faculty that work in community-based and/or participatory research? T E AC H I N G Has your institution established trust and/or working relationships with local community partners? OT H E R Is there faculty capacity to teach courses or existing coursework on community engagement? POLICY Are there existing policies that incentivize or require community engagement or participatory methods? What resources currently exist within your local community? S O C I A L / R E L AT I O N A L K N OW L E D G E & E X P E R T I S E Are there trusted organizations and/or leaders in the community that want to work with your institution? What networks do they have access to? Is your institution connected with the individuals and organizations that know the local community best? These may be long-term residents, community leaders, business owners, and nonprofits that have unique skill sets and valuable knowledge. OT H E R FINANCIAL Are there existing grants or funding opportunities at the local, state and national level that you could partner with a community organization to pursue or implement? C U LT U R A L & H I S TO R I C Are there historic landmarks and/or culture keepers (individual) in the local community? Do you know who or what these are? How can these be identified by local residents? Framework & Recommendations W E A K N ES S ES Where are there gaps in the resources listed on the lefthand page? Where could you improve? What are local community members most likely to see as weaknesses? Would these gaps be best filled by other organizations, individuals, or institutions in the community? O PP O RTU N ITI ES STEP THREE Can you identify any substantial opportunities to build on new or emerging resources? NAME RESOURCES Do your institution’s strengths open up any opportunities? Can you create opportunities by eliminating your institution’s weaknesses? TH RE AT S What are the greatest obstacles that your institution faces in engaging or partnering with its local community? Could any of your institution’s weaknesses seriously threaten community engagement or partnerships? 053 STEP FOUR Choose Methods — This year-long research study has revealed several common methods for institutionalizing community engagement at local colleges and universities across the U.S. These methods are listed below, alongside the resources required for successful implementation. Compare the strengths and opportunities identified in Step 3 with those required to implement the methods below. Which of these methods should be implemented at your institution? FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S S TA N DA RD I N S TITU TI O N A L ME TH O DS Academic Requirement An academic course requirement, typically for undergraduate students, that must be completed before graduation. — Anchor Institution Partnership A place-based collaboration either as a single anchor or among several anchor institutions in a given area. Typically these collaborations are comprised of colleges, universities, and healthcare organizations that share and coordinate their resources in a given area. — Central Office Campus-wide infrastructure to coordinate community engagement and/or partnerships. — Community-Based Research Funding Financial support for community-engaged research. While the research may contribute to specific academic disciplines, the nature of the work is informed by collaboration with one or more community partners. — Institutional Evaluation and Measurement An institution-wide system or process for definition, measurement, and communication around community-engaged work. — Local Procurement and Hiring Commitment A public, financial commitment to create economic opportunities for local residents and businesses by hiring more locally- and minority-owned firms and workers. — Place-Based Neighborhood Center A university center that is physically present in a local neighborhood that meets the needs and desires of local residents. — Promotion and Tenure Policy A faculty promotion and tenure policy that incorporates community engagement language, working to institutionalize the practice across academic disciplines. — Strategic Plan Commitment Specific, ideally measurable commitment(s) to community engagement in the institution's current strategic plan. Framework & Recommendations Strategic Plan Commitment Promotion & Tenure Policy Place-Based Neighborhood Center Local Procurement & Hiring Commitment Institutional Evaluation & Measurement Community-Based Research Funding Central Office Anchor Institution Partnership Academic Requirement I N S T I T U T I O N A L M E T H O DS H UM A N FINANCIAL R E S E A RC H T E AC H I N G STEP FOUR CHOOSE METHODS 055 POLICY S PAC E COMMU N I T Y PA R T N E R STEP FIVE Avoiding Implementation Pitfalls — A final consideration involves strategies for implementation. Our research revealed two areas where universitycommunity partnerships report repeatedly running into difficulty: consistent communication and adequate financing. Use the following questions to identify how your institution can avoid these common pitfalls and set themselves and their partners up for successful implementation. COMMU N I C ATI O N Internal STEP FIVE AVOIDING IMPL EMEN TAT ION PI T FA L L S Which office or staff member(s) will communicate internally about the selected community engagement methods? How will this designated office or staff member communicate internally? Email / List Serv Social Media Other Website In-Person Meetings What existing processes / systems will be used to support internal communication? What processes / systems need to be established to facilitate internal communication? External Which office or staff member(s) will communicate externally with partners and press/media outlets about community engagement methods? How will this designated office or staff member communicate externally? Email / List Serv Social Media Other Website In-Person Meetings What existing processes / systems will be used to support external communication? What processes / systems need to be established to facilitate external communication? FI N A N C I N G How will the selected institutional methods be funded? University Support Grants Partnerships President or Vice Provost’s Office Central Community Engagement Office A Single Department Multiple Departments Which funders are interested in supporting this kind of work? Which partners have shared goals and resources (financial or in-kind) to support this work? Framework & Recommendations E N DNOTES 22“Salt Lake City: Basic Population and Household Demographic Trends, 1990–2000.” Utah Community Data Project, November 18, 2013, accessed July 2018, ucdp.utah.edu/reports/Place/ Demographic_Trends/Demographics_ Trends_Salt_Lake_City_city_67000.pdf. 23 Sarah Munro (Director, University Neighborhood Partners), interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Phone, July 17, 2018. 24 Irene Fisher, “University/Neighborhood Partners.” Continuum: The Magazine of The University of Utah, 12, No. 3 (2002), continuum.utah.edu/back_issues/ winter02/andfinally.htm. 25 Amanda Buberger (Assistant Director of Tulane University’s Center for Public Service), interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Phone, June 6, 2018. 26 “Graduation Requirement.” Center for Public Service, accessed June 2018, www.cps.tulane.edu/about/ graduation-requirement. 27 Barbara E. Moely, et al. “University Students’ Views of a Public Service Graduation Requirement,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, (2011): 43–58, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ967606.pdf. 28 Earl Williams, interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Phone, October 2, 2018. 29 Earl Williams, Tulane University Freshman Orientation, 2018. 30 Andreas Hoffmann (Executive Director of Greenlight New Orleans), interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Phone, July 23, 2018. 31 “Indianapolis Community Requirement,” Butler University, September 6, 2016, accessed June 2018, www.butler.edu/core/ indianapolis-community-requirement. 32 “Center for Citizenship and Community,” Butler University, August 5, 2016, accessed June 2018, www.butler.edu/ccc. 33 Donald Braid (Director, Center for Citizenship and Community at Butler University), interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Zoom Video Call, July 3, 2018. 34 Rev. Héctor J. Hernández (Pastor, Iglesia Nueva Creación), interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Phone, July 31, 2018. 35“Community-Based Research (CBR) Grant Program,” Vice President for Research University of Utah, accessed August, 2018, research.utah.edu/funding/urc/ community-based-research.php. 36“University Strategy,” President Ruth Watkins University of Utah, accessed July, 2018, president.utah.edu/ universitystrategy. 37“University Research Committee,” Vice President for Research University of Utah, accessed September, 2018, research.utah. edu/funding/urc. 38 Sarah Munro (Director, University Neighborhood Partners), interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Phone, July 17, 2018. 39 Barbara Brown, et al. “Facilitating Mutually Beneficial Community-Based Research,” University of Neighborhood Partners, (2007). 40 Karen Tao (University of Utah Faculty), interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Phone, August 3, 2018. 41 Ray Bonis, Jodi Koste, and Curtis Lyons, Virginia Commonwealth University: The Campus History Series. (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2006). 42“Community Engagement,” Virginia Commonwealth University, accessed September 2018, community.vcu.edu. 43 Lynne E. Pelco (VCU Associate Vice Provost of Community Engagement) and Catherine Howard (Vice Provost, VCU Community Engagement), interviewed by Joshua Yates, Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Zoom Video Call, June 13, 2018. 057 44 Lynn E Pelco et al. “Incorporating Community Engagement Language into Promotion and Tenure Policies: One University’s Journey,” Metropolitan Universities, 27, no. 2, Dec. 2016, p. 87., doi:10.18060/21129. 45 “Community Engagement Institute,” Virginia Commonwealth University Community Engagement, May 8, 2018, accessed June 2018, community.vcu.edu/ faculty-support-/training--development/ community-engagement-institute. 46 Natalie Sherman, “Johns Hopkins: Program to Boost Local Hiring, Buying Is Paying Off,” The Baltimore Sun, March 9, 2017, accessed July, 2018, www. baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-hopkinslocal-progress-20170309-story.html. 47“Johns Hopkins launches HopkinsLocal, an initiative aimed at strengthening Baltimore,” Johns Hopkins University Hub, September 30, 2015, accessed July, 2018. 48 “Economic Impact Report.” Johns Hopkins University & Medicine (2014), accessed July, 2018. web.jhu.edu/administration/ gca/ projects/publications-and-reports/ economic-impact-report/index.html. 49“Meet President Daniels.” Office of the President The Johns Hopkins University, accessed July, 2018, president.jhu.edu/ meet-president-daniels. 50 Kylie Patterson (Johns Hopkins Director of Economic Inclusion), interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Phone, July 17, 2018. 51 LaQuicha Brown (Owner, Berries by Quicha), interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Phone, August 15, 2018. 52 Laura Beeth and Paul Pribbenow, “Central Corridor Anchor Partnership: Securing Regional Prosperity,” Journal on Anchor Institutions and Communities. Vol. 2, 2017. 53“Cedar Riverside Neighborhood,” Minnesota Compass, accessed September, 2018. 54 Paul Pribbenow, “Lessons on Vocation and Location: The Saga of Augsburg College as an Urban Settlement,” Word & World. Vol. 34, No. 2, 2014. 55 Paul Pribbenow, interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Josh Yates, Phone, July 30, 2018. 56“Central Corridor Funders Collaborative,” Central Corridor Funders Collaborative: Investing Beyond the Rail, accessed September 2018, www.funderscollaborative.org. 57 Central Corridor Anchor Partnership, accessed September 2018, www. centralcorridoranchorpartnership.org. 58 “Social Embeddedness Survey,” ASU Office of University Initiatives, accessed June 2018, ui.asu.edu/projects/ social-embeddedness-survey. 59 “Research and Innovation,” Arizona State University, accessed June 2018, www.asu. edu/about/research. 60 “About Michael M. Crow,” Office of the President Arizona State University, accessed June, 2018. president.asu.edu/ about/michaelcrow. 61 “Social Embeddedness: ASU as an Anchor Institution,” Arizona State University, August 1,2017, issuu. com/universityinitiatives/docs/ social_embeddedness_collateral_2017. 62 “Appendix: A Social Embeddedness Plan for ASU,” Creating the New American University at ASU, September 2006, accessed June, 2018, www.asu.edu/ui/ documents/SEplanforASU_Appendix_ Sept2006.pdf 63 “University Innovation Fellowship,” ASU Office of University Initiatives, accessed June 2018, ui.asu.edu/fellowship. 64 Campus Compact Action Statement, compact.org/actionstatement/statement. FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S 01 Richard Florida, “Why Cities Matter,” CityLab, Sept. 15, 2011, www.citylab.com/ design/2011/09/why-cities-matter/123. 02 Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak, The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2017). 03 Richard Florida, “The Reality of America’s College Towns,” CityLab, 2016, www.citylab.com/equity/2016/09/ americas-biggest-college-towns/498755. 04 David Maurrasse, Beyond the Campus: How Colleges and Universities Form Partnerships with Their Communities (Routledge, New York, 2001): 4. 05 Cynthia M. Gibson, “New Times Demand New Scholarship,” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16, no. 4 (2012): 235-269. 06 Kelly S. Lockeman, & Lynn E. Pelco, “The Relationship Between Service-Learning and Degree Completion,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 19, no. 1 (2013): 18-30. 07 Scott Jaschik, “Falling Confidence in Higher Ed”, October 8, 2018 08“Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions,” Pew Research Center, 2017, www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/ sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-ofnational-institutions. 09“Urban and Rural,”Census Bureau QuickFacts, 2012, www.census.gov/geo/ reference/urban-rural.html. 10 Marisa, Zapata, et al. “Strategic Planning to Advance Equity on Campus: A Case Study at Portland State University,” Metropolitan Universities, 29, no. 1 (2018). 28–45, doi:10.18060/22179, journals. iupui.edu/index.php/muj/article/ download/22179/21892. 11 “Strategic Planning 2016–20,” Office of the President, Accessed July 2018, www.pdx. edu/president/stategic-planning. 12 Irving Levin (Member, PSU Board of Trustees), interviewed by Michaela Accardi, Phone, July 16, 2018. 13 Stephen Percy (Dean, PSU College of Urban and Public Affairs) and Mark Wubbold (Senior Policy Analyst, PSU President’s Office),interview by Michaela Accardi, July 16, 2018. 14“We Are Unidos Por RGV,” UNIDOS POR RGV, Accessed June 2018. www.unidosporrgv.org. 1 5 Francisco Guajardo et al. “The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley: Reframing HSIs through a Multi-Sited Ethnography,” Association of Mexican American Educators, Journal 2, no. 3 (2017), doi: 10.24974/ amae.11.3.361. 16 Lourdes Flores, Virginia Santana and Eva Carranza (ARISE), Interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Phone, July 12, 2018. 17 “Transforming Our World: Strategic Plan,” The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 2017, accessed June 2018. www.utrgv. edu/strategic-plan/_files/documents/ pdf/16094_aa_strategic_plan_full_ document_proof_4.pdf. 18 Miguel A. Guajardo, et al. Reframing Community Partnerships in Education: Uniting the Power of Place and Wisdom of People (New York, NY: Routledge, 2016). 19 Francisco Guajardo (Executive Director of the B3 Institute at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley), interviewed by Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland, Phone, July 19, 2018. 20“University Neighborhood Partners,” University Neighborhood Partners University of Utah, accessed July, 2018, partners.utah.edu. 21“University Strategy,” President Ruth Watkins University of Utah, accessed July, 2018, president.utah.edu/ universitystrategy. BIBLIOGR APHY “Achieve a Healthy Mix of Work, Personal Life, and Academic Pursuits.” Johns Hopkins Office of Work, Life and Engagement. July 6, 2017. Accessed July, 2018. hopkinsworklife.org. “About Michael M. Crow.” Office of the President Arizona State University. Accessed June, 2018. president. asu.edu/about/michaelcrow. FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S “Appendix: A Social Embeddedness Plan for ASU.” Creating the New American University at ASU. September 2006. Accessed June, 2018. www.asu. edu/ui/documents/SEplanforASU_ Appendix_Sept2006.pdf; asunow. asu.edu/20170911-asu-news-asuselected-nations-most-innovative-school-third-straight-yar. Beagley, Lindsey. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Zoom Video Call, July, 2018. Beeth, L. and Pribbenow, P. “Central Corridor Anchor Partnership: Securing Regional Prosperity.” Journal on Anchor Institutions and Communities. Vol. 2, 2017. Brabant, Margaret and Donald Braid. “The Devil is in the Details: Defining Civic Engagement.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13 (2009): 59–87. files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ905397.pdf. Braid, Donald. By Michaela Accardi. Zoom Video Call, July 3, 2018. Braid, Donald. “Getting the Community into the Student: The Indianapolis Community Requirement.” Association of American Colleges and Universities. 17, no. 3 (2014). www.aacu.org/ diversitydemocracy/2014/ summer/braid. Brown, Barbara, et al. “Facilitating Mutually Beneficial CommunityBased Research.” University of Neighborhood Partners (2007). Brown, Barbara, et al. “Guidelines for Community-Based Research Partnerships.” University Neighborhood Partners (2008). Brown, LaQuicha. By Michaela Accardi, Phone, August 15, 2018. Buberger, Amanda. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, June 6, 2018. “Butler’s Center for Citizenship and Community Turns 20.” Butler University Butler Stories. November 7, 2016. Accessed June 2018. stories. butler.edu/content/butlers-center-citizenship-and-community-turns-20. “Cedar Riverside Neighborhood.” Minnesota Compass. Accessed September, 2018. “Center for Citizenship and Community.” Butler University. August 5, 2016. Accessed June 2018. www.butler.edu/ccc. Central Corridor Anchor Partnership. Accessed September 2018. www. centralcorridoranchorpartnership.org. “Central Corridor Funders Collaborative.” Central Corridor Funders Collaborative: Investing Beyond the Rail. Accessed September 2018. www.funderscollaborative.org. “Community-Based Research (CBR) Grant Program.” Vice President for Research University of Utah. Accessed August, 2018. research. utah.edu/funding/urc/community-based-research.php. “Community Engagement Institute.” Virginia Commonwealth University Community Engagement. May 8, 2018. Accessed June 2018. community.vcu.edu/faculty-support-/training--development/ community-engagement-institute. “Community Engagement.” Virginia Commonwealth University. Accessed September 2018. community.vcu.edu. “Current Quest for Distinction.” Virginia Commonwealth University Quest 2025: Together We Transform. October 27, 2017. Accessed June 2018. quest.vcu.edu/current-quest-plan. Deji-Olatunde, Adebimpe (Beam) Idowu. By Michaela Accardi, Phone, August 1, 2018. Diaz, Abraham. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, July 18, 2018. “Economic Impact Report.” Johns Hopkins University & Medicine (2014). Accessed July, 2018. web.jhu.edu/ administration/gca/projects/ publications-and-reports/economic-impact-report/index.html. Faller, Mary Beth, and Stoneman, Amanda. “ASU Selected as Nation’s Most Innovative School for Third Straight Year.” ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact ASU News. December 29, 2017. Accessed June 2018. Fisher, Irene. “University/ Neighborhood Partners.” Continuum: The Magazine of the University of Utah, 12, no. 3 (2002). continuum.utah.edu/ back_issues/winter02/andfinally.htm. Bibliography Flores, Lourdes, Santana, Virginia, and Carranza, Eva. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, July 12, 2018. Florida, Richard. “The Reality of America’s College Towns.” CityLab. 2016. www.citylab.com/ equity/2016/09/americas-biggest-college-towns/498755. Gibson, Cynthia M. “New Times Demand New Scholarship.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 16, no. 4 (2012): 235-269. Gillespie, Bob. By Michaela Accardi, Phone, August 15, 2018. “Graduation Requirement.” Center for Public Service. Accessed June 2018. www.cps.tulane.edu/about/ graduation-requirement. Guajardo, Francisco. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, July 19, 2018. Guajardo, Francisco, et al. “The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley: Reframing HSIs through a Multi-Sited Ethnography.” Association of Mexican American Educators Journal. 2, no. 3 (2017). Doi: 10.24974/amae.11.3.361. Guajardo, Miguel A., et al. Reframing Community Partnerships in Education: Uniting the Power of Place and Wisdom of People. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016. Hoffmann, Andreas. By Michaela Accardi. Phone, July 23, 2018. “HopkinsLocal Build. Hire. Buy.” HopkinsLocal. Accessed July, 2018. Hopkinslocal.jhu.edu. “Hurricane Katrina Statistics Fast Facts.” Cable News Network. August 28, 2017. Accessed June 2018. www.cnn. com/2013/08/23/us/hurricane-katrina-statistics-fast-facts/index.html. “Hurricane Katrina.” Encyclopædia Britannica. August 16, 2018. Accessed August 29, 2018. www.britannica.com/event/Hurricane-Katrina. “Indianapolis Community Requirement.” Butler University. September 6, 2016. Accessed June 2018. www.butler.edu/core/ indianapolis-community-requirement. “Johns Hopkins launches HopkinsLocal, an initiative aimed at strengthening Baltimore.” Johns Hopkins University Hub. September 30, 2015. Accessed July, 2018. hub.jhu. edu/2015/09/30/hopkins-local-launch. Levin, Irving. By Michaela Accardi. Phone, July 16, 2018. “Meet President Daniels.” Office of the President The Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July, 2018. president.jhu.edu/meet-president-daniels. Moely, Barbara E., and Ilustre, Vincent. “Outcomes for Students Completing a University Public Service Graduation Requirement: Phase 3 of a Longitudinal Study.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 22, no. 2 (2016): 16-30. files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137439.pdf. Moely, Barbara E., and Ilustre, Vincent. “University Students’ Views of a Public Service Graduation Requirement.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (2011): 43-58. files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967606.pdf. Munro, Sarah. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, July 17, 2018. Patterson, Kylie. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, July 17, 2018. Peacock, S. By Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Phone, September 5, 2018. Pelco, Lynn E., and Howard, Catherine. By Joshua Yates, Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Zoom Video Call, June 13, 2018. Pelco, Lynn E., and Howard, Catherine. “Incorporating Community Engagement Language into Promotion and Tenure Policies: One University’s Journey.” Metropolitan Universities, 27, no. 2 (2016): 87. doi:10.18060/21129. Percy, Stephen and Wubbold, Mark. By Michaela Accardi. Phone, July 16, 2018. Pribbenow, Paul. By Michaela Accardi and Josh Yates. Phone, July 30, 2018. Pribbenow, P. “Lessons on Vocation and Location: The Saga of Augsburg College as an Urban Settlement.” Word & World. Vol. 34, No. 2, 2014. “Rail Returns to the Central Corridor.” Metro Transit. June 11, 2014. “Research and Innovation.” Arizona State University. Accessed June 2018, www.asu.edu/about/research. Rev. Hernández, Héctor J. By Michaela Accardi. Phone, July 31, 2018. “Salt Lake City: Basic Population and Household Demographic Trends, 1990-2000.” Utah Community Data Project. November 18, 2013. Accessed July 2018. ucdp.utah.edu/reports/ Place/Demographic_Trends/ Demographics_Trends_Salt_ Lake_City_city_67000.pdf. Scharper, Julie. “By Buying Locally, Hopkins Helps Small Businesses Survive and Thrive.” Johns Hopkins University Hub. May 14, 2018. Accessed July, 2018. hub.jhu. edu/2018/05/14/hopkins-buys-locally-gundalow-gourmet/. Schwartzmann, Erica. By Michaela Accardi, Phone, July 20, 2018. “Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions,” Pew Research Center. 2017. www.people-press. org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions. Sherman, Natalie. “Johns Hopkins: Program to Boost Local Hiring, Buying Is Paying Off.” The Baltimore Sun.March 9, 2017. Accessed July, 2018. www.baltimoresun.com/ business/bs-bz-hopkins-localprogress-20170309-story.html. Sladek, Emily. “Anchor Institution’s Mission: Measuring Place-based Engagement.” The Democracy Collaborative (2017). Accessed July, 2018. democracycollaborative.org/ higher-ed-anchor-mission. “Social Embeddedness: ASU as an Anchor Institution.” Arizona State University. August 1, 2017. issuu. com/universityinitiatives/docs/ social_embeddedness_collateral_2017. “Social Embeddedness Survey.” ASU Office of University Initiatives. Accessed June 2018. ui.asu.edu/projects/ social-embeddedness-survey. “Strategic Planning 2016-20.” Office of the President. Accessed July 2018. www. pdx.edu/president/stategic-planning. Tao, Karen. By Michaela Accardi. Phone, August 3, 2018. 059 “Transforming Our World: Strategic Plan.” The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 2017. Accessed June 2018. www. utrgv.edu/strategic-plan/_files/ documents/pdf/16094_aa_strategic_ plan_full_document_proof_4.pdf. Trejo, Cristina. By Josh Yates, Michaela Accardi and Maggie Hirshland. Zoom Video Call, June 20, 2018. “University Innovation Fellowship.” ASU Office of University Initiatives. Accessed June 2018. ui.asu.edu/fellowship. “University Neighborhood Partners.” University Neighborhood Partners University of Utah. Accessed July, 2018. partners.utah.edu. “University Research Committee.” Vice President for Research University of Utah. Accessed September, 2018. research.utah.edu/funding/urc. “University Strategy.” President Ruth Watkins University of Utah. Accessed July, 2018. president. utah.edu/universitystrategy. “Urban and Rural,” Census Bureau QuickFacts. 2012. www.census.gov/ geo/reference/urban-rural.html. Warfield, Samantha Jo. “Tulane University Launches New Program to Encourage Graduates to Spend Public Service Year in New Orleans.” Corporation for National and Community Service. February 27, 2014. Accessed June 2018. www. nationalservice.gov/newsroom/ press-releases/2014/tulane-university-launches-new-program-encourage-graduates-spend-public. “We Are Unidos Por RGV.” UNIDOS POR RGV. Accessed June 2018. www.unidosporrgv.org. Williams, Earl. By Michaela Accardi. Phone, October 2, 2018. Williams, E. Tulane University Freshman Orientation. 2018. Zapata, Marisa, et al. “Strategic Planning to Advance Equity on Campus: A Case Study at Portland State University.” Metropolitan Universities. 29, no. 1 (2018): 28-45. doi:10.18060/22179. journals.iupui.edu/index.php/muj/ article/download/22179/21892. FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Moely, Barbara E., et al. “Psychometric Properties and Correlates of the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ): A Measure of Students’ Attitudes Related to Service-Learning.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 8, no. 2 (2002): 15-26. quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/ pod/dod-idx/psychometric-properties-and-correlates-of-the-civic. pdf?c=mjcsl;idno=3239521.0008.202;format=pdf. Reedy, Katherine. “Social Embeddedness Takes Center Stage.” ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact ASU News. April 10, 2018. Accessed June 2018. asunow.asu. edu/20180410-arizona-impact-social-embeddedness-takes-center-stage. A PPE N D IX I University-Community Partnerships Study SU RVE Y Q U ESTI O NS C E N T R A L O F F I C E/A DM I N I S T R AT I V E P OS I T I O N Is there a central, legible body dedicated to advancing community engagement, partnerships, or outreach? If so, what is its name? When was this office, center, or position established? What is the governance structure? Are community stakeholders included? R E S E A RC H FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S Are there research institutes or centers dedicated to community-engaged research at your institution? If so, please list their names. Are there funding opportunities available for students and/or faculty interested in community-engaged research at your institution? If so, please list grant or program names. What is the total amount of funding allocated for community-engaged research? CO U RS E S Is there a centralized, community-engaged pedagogy at your institution? If so, what is its name? How is this pedagogy described? How many courses are available annually for students as part of this centralized pedagogy? S T U D E N T S E RV I C E O RGA N IZ AT I O N S How many student-run volunteer/service-oriented organizations are currently operating at your institution? IM PAC T R E P O R T I N G Has your institution published an economic or community impact report? If so, what is its name? If applicable, what year was this report published? S T R AT E G I C P L A N Does your institution's strategic plan include a commitment to engaging with the local community? Yes, it includes a commitment related to teaching, student learning, and academic research. Yes, it includes a commitment related to procurement, employment, purchasing, etc. Yes, it includes a commitment in both of the areas listed above. No, it does not include a commitment to local community engagement. No strategic plan. CO N C LU D I N G Q U E S T I O N S Was all of the above information complete and correct? Yes No Is your institution doing innovative community-engaged work in the areas of Leadership & Administration, Academics & Research, or Anchor Impact? If so, please identify which area(s) and describe. Appendices A PPE N D IX I I University-Community Partnerships Study U N IVERSITI ES SA MPL ED LO C AT I O N U N I V E RS I T Y N A M E LO C AT I O N Washington, D.C. Univ. of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Univ. of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL Auburn University Auburn, AL Univ. of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage, AK Augsburg University Minneapolis, MN Univ. of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, AR Ball State University Muncie, IN Univ. of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Belmont University Nashville, TN Univ. of Central Oklahoma Edmond, OK Boise State University Boise, ID Univ. of Cincinnati – Main Campus Cincinnati, OH Brown University Providence, RI Univ. of Colorado – Colorado Springs Colorado Springs, CO Buffalo State College (SUNY Buffalo) Buffalo, NY Univ. of Colorado – Denver Denver, CO Butler University Indianapolis, IN Univ. of Denver Denver, CO Clemson University Clemson, SC Univ. of Georgia Athens, GA College of Staten Island, CUNY Staten Island, NY Univ. of Houston-Downtown Houston, TX Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL DePaul University Chicago, IL Univ. of Iowa Iowa City, IA Drexel University Philadelphia, PA Univ. of Kentucky Lexington, KY Duke University Durham, NC Univ. of Louisville Louisville, KY Emory University Atlanta, GA Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA Florida International University Miami, FL Univ. of Memphis Memphis, TN Georgetown University Washington, D.C. Univ. of Miami Coral Gables, FL Gonzaga University Spokane, WA Univ. of Michigan-Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI Harvard University Cambridge, MA Univ. of Michigan Flint Flint, MI Univ. of Minnesota-Twin Cities Minneapolis, MN Univ. of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, MO Univ. of Montana Missoula, MT Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha Omaha, NE Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC Univ. of North Dakota – Main Campus Grand Forks, ND Univ. of North Texas at Dallas Dallas, TX Univ. of Notre Dame South Bend, IN Univ. of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA Univ. of San Diego San Diego, CA Univ. of South Carolina-Columbia Columbia, SC Univ. of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, MS Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles, CA Univ. of Southern Indiana Evansville, IN Univ. of Southern Maine Portland, Gorham, & Lewiston-Auburn, ME Univ. of Texas at Austin Austin, TX Univ. of Texas at Rio Grande Valley Rio Grande Valley, TX Univ. of Utah Salt Lake City, UT Univ. of Vermont Burlington, VT Univ. of Virginia Charlottesville, VA Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO Weber State University Ogden, UT West Virginia University Morgantown, WV University of Detroit-Mercy (Design Center) Detroit, MI Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN Indiana University Northwest Gary, IN Jackson State University Jackson, MS Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD Kansas State University Manhattan, KS Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA Loyola University New Orleans New Orleans, LA Marquette University Milwaukee, WI Missouri State University Springfield, MO New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM New York University New York City, NY North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC Northeastern University Boston, MA Ohio State University Columbus, OH Oregon State University Bend, OR Pace University New York, NY Portland State University Portland, OR Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick New Brunswick, NJ Seattle University Seattle, WA Syracuse University Syracuse, NY Temple University Philadelphia, PA Texas State University Austin, TX Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX The University of Chicago Chicago, IL The University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN Towson University Towson, MD Tufts University Medford, MA Tulane University New Orleans, LA FIELD GUIDE FOR URBAN UNIVERSIT Y-COMMUNIT Y PARTNERSHIP S U N I V E RS I T Y N A M E American University Our vision is to see a world where all individuals and institutions work together in order to create a common good. THRIVING CITIES LAB Watson Manor • 3 University Circle • Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 ThrivingCitiesGroup.com