Facilitators of Change: OUPs Co Q¹ì Q¹ì Q¹ì BOOKMOBI ¾ N )N 9N IN YN iN yN ‰N ™N ©N ¹N ÉN ÙN éN ùN N N )N 9N IN YN iN yN ‰N ™N ©N ¹N ÉN ÙN éN ùN N þp MOBI ýé.È®
Facilitators of Change: OUP’s Connections and Resources Continue to Transform and Empower Communities
FACILITATORS OF CHANGE
OUP’s
Connections
and Resources
Continue to
Transform
and Empower
Communities
Facilitators of Change: OUP's Connections and Resources Continue to Transform and Empower Communities highlights the history of the Office of University Partnerships and examines some of the many future options and opportunities the Office will explore.
To view this publication online, visit www.huduser.org/portal/ or the Office of University Partnerships Web site at www.oup.org. To request a hardcopy version of this publication, please call HUD USER at (800) 245-269l and choose option 3 (University Partnerships Clearinghouse) from the voice menu. You may request publications by e-mail at oup@oup.org.
All OUP publications are free of charge.
Prepared by:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of University Partnerships
February 2013
Table of
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Anchor Institutions: Strengthening IHE/Community . . . . . 7
Partnerships and Building Capacity Within Communities
Delivering Technical Assistance and Training . . . . . . . . 19
With a Digital Twist
OUP’s Role in Helping IHEs Establish Volunteering . . . . . 25 and Service-Learning Opportunities for Civic Engagement
Partnering With Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Introduction
Facilitators of Change 1
A strong nation is built upon the foundation of strong communities. Healthy, resilient communities provide their residents with safety, stability, possibility, and purpose. They shelter, educate, heal, and employ. In turn, a community can only be as strong as its weakest links. Issues such as unemployment, homelessness, and crime and recidivism, to name a few, slowly whittle away a community’s fortitude, leaving its residents prone to the misfortunes that befall the unprotected.
Our nation has long understood these truths and has worked to provide the tools necessary to keep communities powerful and progressive. One of these tools is the presence of an institution of higher education (IHE) in a community. Starting with the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, which established land-grant colleges throughout the United States, the federal government sought to strengthen the educational infrastructure of this rapidly growing nation. Since then, IHEs have continued to expand their presence throughout communities across the United States. These deeply anchored institutions have served their surrounding areas well: They have expanded access to postsecondary education, provided qualified employees to meet the demands of an ever-evolving workforce, performed research that leads to new knowledge and innovation, and offered job stability, even in trying economic times.
What is missing from all these positive impacts, however, is direct input from the community. IHEs benefited their communities simply through their presence and operation, but they were not actively engaging surrounding residents in a dialogue on specific needs or ideas. The discord of the 1960s, however, introduced a new element to the campus-community relationship. IHEs and community activists alike examined ways to harness the increased engagement and passion of students seeking to address the social and community issues they were witnessing beyond the walls of their schools. Colleges and universities reexamined their relationships with the
neighborhoods that surrounded them and how they could play a more significant role in responding to community needs through their invaluable pool of knowledge, research, and resources.
By decade’s end, several IHEs were sufficiently convinced about the positive impact they and their students could have upon their communities; they convened a special Mid-Continent Conference to discuss the evolving social complexities surrounding these IHEs and to outline the initial tenets of this burgeoning IHE-based community development movement. The ideas that grew out of this conference steadily took root, emerging as examples of organizations and initiatives intent on cultivating successful campus-community partnerships. The Community Development Society, which grew directly from the events of the Mid-Continent Conference,1 Campus Compact, and Campus-Community Partnerships for Health are prime examples of organizations that came out of this changing focus and that continue to champion the cause of campus-community partnerships.
To facilitate campus-community engagement on a federal level, academic leaders and organizations also began advocating with the U.S. government for the development of programs designed to encourage and support these
2 Facilitators of Change
alliances. The government heard this call, signing into effect numerous Congressional acts and Presidential Executive Orders that would lay the foundation for what would soon become the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of University Partnerships (OUP) (see Exhibit 1).
Congress’s passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, which included the Community
Outreach Partnership Act, contained the origins of what would ultimately become OUP. This act allocated
HUD funding for a new grant program that would increase the facilitation of partnership and outreach activities between IHEs and their local communities and governments. Funding would be available to all accredited 2- and
4-year IHEs and would include a research component that would document and facilitate a deeper understanding of the problems of large and small cities in an attempt to combat these ills.2
HUD’s response to this allocation was the 1994 launch of the Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) grant. COPC’s purpose was to assist communities in implementing outreach and applied research activities that would address problems that afflicted these urban areas, while encouraging changes in how IHEs related to their neighbors.3 To oversee management of this new grant program, HUD established OUP.
OUP was also HUD’s formal recognition of the crucial role that campus-community collaborations were already playing and could continue to play in addressing local problems and revitalizing the nation’s communities. OUP’s mission was to encourage and expand the growing number of campus-community partnerships. The Office was dedicated to supporting and increasing these efforts through grants, interactive conferences and workshops, technical assistance (TA), and research to achieve three original goals:
• Recognize, reward, and build upon successful examples of universities’ activities in local revitalization projects.
• Create the next generation of urban scholars and encourage them to focus their work on housing and community development policy.
• Create partnerships with other federal agencies to support innovative teaching, research, and service partnerships.4
In addition to COPC, OUP also launched the Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant (DDRG) program in 1994. DDRG supported the Office’s second original primary goal by providing funding for doctoral candidates to develop and conduct applied research on policy-relevant housing and urban development issues.5
OUP’s initial investments quickly compounded as word of the Office spread throughout the IHE community; its offerings grew to include the following grant programs:
HISTORICAL TIMELINE
Facilitators of Change 3
Initiative on HBCUs.
Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) and Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant (DDRG) programs.
(AN/NHIAC) grant program.
Research Grant (EDSRG) programs, and took over management of HUD’s HBCU program.
a one-time grant opportunity called Universities Rebuilding America Partnerships (URAP).
Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week.
Educational Excellence for African Americans.
4 Facilitators of Change
Each of these programs was designed not only to meet the growing demand for campus-community partnerships and research, but also to do so in a way that would ultimately present diverse solutions to meet the needs of a diverse nation.
Indeed, it is this level of customized response from OUP, particularly through its minority-serving institution (MSI) grant programs, that differentiated the Office from similar programs at other federal agencies. OUP recognized that its more nationally recognized COPC grantees—Yale, Georgetown, Duke, and Clemson, to name a few—had the presence, connections, and resources to implement lar ge-scale projects designed for large-
scale needs. However, the less prominent but equally influential MSIs were uniquely qualified to help connect OUP to communities located in some of the most remote—and often overlooked—regions of the country. From institutions serving Native Americans, the country’s oldest residents, to those serving Hispanic Americans, the nation’s fastest growing minority population, OUP’s MSI grantees have initiated and continue to support projects designed to help improve and advance distinctively diverse communities that would have otherwise fallen outside the parameters of progress.
In OUP’s 18 years of dedication to helping grantees and their communities accomplish greater goals and aspire to greater heights, the Office has awarded nearly $400 million to more than 530 individual colleges and universities located in almost every state of the Union and two U.S. territories (see Exhibits 2 and 3).
TOTAL OUP FUNDING AWARDED TO IHEs, 1994–2010*
HSIAC
TCUP
$34,679,483
URAP-CD**
$2,000,000
URAP-HBCU
$3,149,682
AN/NHIAC
$34,626,960
CDWSP
$75,964,240
HBCU
$115,016,209
$30,460,257
COPC
$87,728,755
TOTAL FUNDS AWARDED: $383,625,586
*Excludes DDRG and EDSRG funding.
**Universities Rebuilding America Partnerships-Community Design
Source: Numbers collected from grantee map database and phone books on the OUP Web site, www.oup.org.
This tally includes:
Facilitators of Change 5
• Nearly 90 percent of the IHEs designated as “land-grant colleges” by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 and the
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.6
• Nearly 90 percent of the country’s Tribal Colleges and Universities.7
• More than 75 percent of the country’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities.8
• Approximately 25 percent of the country’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions.9
In 2005, HUD selected OUP to respond on the Department’s behalf to the government-wide call for aid to the
Gulf Coast regions devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In a collaborative effort with the Corporation
for National and Community Service (CNCS), OUP launched the Universities Rebuilding America Partnerships (URAP) initiative, which inspired IHEs to come together from across the country to renovate the landscape and revive the spirits of the communities most damaged by the hurricanes. URAP recipients ranged from nearby Gulf Coast IHEs in Louisiana and Mississippi to schools from as far as Washington state and New York.10
OUP GRANTS PER STATE, 1994–2010
*Includes original COPC, COPC New Directions, and COPC Futures programs.
Source: Numbers collected from grantee map database and phone books on the OUP Web site, www.oup.org.
6 Facilitators of Change
Versatility in the Face of Volatility
Right now, the nation is struggling against the most severe economic upheavals seen in generations. The across- the-board challenges are large enough that not even the federal government is immune. Federally funded social empowerment programs have sustained numerous deep congressional cuts made in an effort to redirect the nation back toward financial equilibrium. As a result, OUP became one among many programs to experience significant funding reductions.
While the Office may find itself currently without grant funding, it does not find itself without purpose. Difficult times have made partnerships between IHEs and their communities more important than ever, with many communities depe nding heavily upon the intellectual capacity and service-learning strengths of these institutions. Additionally, IHEs can sustain the vitality of our nation’s communities through their far-reaching influence into areas such as education, research, employment, service, housing, job training, purchasing, real estate development, hiring, business incubation, and cultural development.
Right now, OUP’s greatest resource in these unsettled times is its “pool of power”: The knowledge, experience, contacts, and resources gained through 18 years of galvanizing successful and productive partnerships between communities and IHEs. The Office is primed to refocus its energy on most effectively communicating this knowledge and expertise to any and all who need help.
With this publication, OUP invites you to learn more about its next phases, which include emphasizing lessons learned, mapping new ways to reach those most in need of support and knowledge, renewing trusted partnerships, and forging new collaborations that will span agencies, governments, businesses, and beyond.
OUP remains steadfast in its belief in its mission and goals and in recognizing that its mission, while altered, continues on, more important than ever.
Facilitators of Change 7
Anchor Institutions: Strengthening IHE/Community Partnerships and Building Capacity Within Communities
Nearly two decades of funding projects designed to improve and empower the nation’s more distressed communities have given OUP an invaluable resource—its grantees. These IHEs have taken the lead in a diverse range of community redevelopment projects, including driving economic change, improving community living conditions, and developing the capacity of communities to take charge of their own destinies. The ways in which OUP’s grantees have been able to create partnerships, leverage grant funds, and meet community needs is a body of knowledge that can be shared with other IHEs seeking to create similar programs to solve the common problems associated with underdeveloped and under-resourced communities.
One of the primary reasons that IHEs can—and should—play a more significant leadership role in their communities is their standing as anchor institutions. This term refers to long-standing and deeply rooted community organizations that often are the largest contributors to their communities' continued economic stability and strength. IHEs are not the only organizations that can be anchor institutions, of course. Any
large enterprise or organization—hospitals, churches, nonprofits, housing cooperatives—that brings together economic and financial assets, human resources, and physical structures, and has an established presence in the community can act as an anchor institution. IHEs, however, are especially well-placed to lead in communities and
develop partnerships with other anchor institutions (see Exhibit 4).
MAKING THE CASE FOR IHEs AS SUCCESSFUL ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS
• By virtue of their size and resources, IHEs naturally have a greater chance of enacting community-wide improvements.
• IHEs are deeply rooted into their communities, providing residents with far more than higher education opportunities. They also provide much-needed services such as employment opportunities, revenue, health and educational services, and stability, to name a few.
• IHEs can contribute to a sense of neighborhood identity: for example, imagine Cambridge, Massachusetts, without Harvard or MIT, or imagine Ann Arbor, Michigan, without the University of Michigan.
• The symbiotic relationship that IHEs share with their communities gives ample incentive for them to invest in improvements from which both parties will inevitably benefit.
• IHEs contribute to economic growth by generating new ideas that can become the seeds for business development, from high-profile biotechnology and high technology industries to more modest efforts such as creating local affordable housing or local small business incubation.
• IHEs work to create and educate future community leaders. A recent study pointed out that “the single most predictive factor of regional economic growth was the percentage of the population with a 4-year college degree.”11
• IHEs are well-placed to lead other similarly placed potential anchor institutions, such as hospitals, churches, and nonprofits.
8 Facilitators of Change
Why Is Community Involvement From the Anchor Institutions in
Particular so Important?
According to one estimate, approximately 11 percent of the nation’s IHEs are located in distressed central-city neighborhoods.12 For these communities, the fixed and enduring physical presence and substantial financial investments of IHEs can often become their greatest sources of stability and reliability, and can ultimately lead to more considerable investment opportunities. IHEs are situated to exercise leadership in revitalizing central-city neighborhoods and underdeveloped communities, particularly in their capacity to set up strategic partnerships and coordinate the activities of other anchor institutions such as religious institutions, businesses, nonprofits, and hospitals.
Furthermore, many IHEs are research- and knowledge-based institutions, granting them the ability to offer diverse programs across a multitude of disciplines that come into play when revitalizing central cities. Most IHEs have expertise in education, law, medicine and healthcare, business administration, social work, the humanities and the arts, engineering and architecture, and urban planning—to name a few common departments. OUP recognizes that this expertise, especially when it taps into the resources, talent, and human capital within communities, can help transform distressed communities into vibrant and desirable places to live.
What OUP Grantees Accomplish as Anchor Institutions
Our nation’s current economic volatility has only increased the need for creative solutions to the ongoing demands of neighborhood revitalization and community redevelopment. It also underscores the importance of devising smarter ways to use the already available assets that anchor institutions possess. Proponents of the increased involvement of anchor institutions recognize that IHEs—with their talent, resources, and expertise—can play a vital role in this evolving model. IHEs that seek to accept this role would greatly benefit from interaction with other IHEs that have preceded them in embracing their “anchor institution” status within their communities.
Since 1994, OUP has built a repository of IHE grantees that have been successfully playing this anchor institution role in diverse communities—from small towns in Oklahoma to Alaskan Native settlements to central-city Rust Belt neighborhoods. In fact, the idea of IHEs as key players in the success of their surrounding communities formed the background of the COPC program, one of OUP’s inaugural grant opportunities that received congressional funding for 11 years. COPC left an inspirational legacy for the IHEs and for the communities that benefitted from the outreach projects funded by the grants.
In their capacity as anchor institutions, grantees have used their OUP funding to call upon established connections and create multiple opportunities for community and economic development. They have helped communities construct, rehabilitate, and expand public facilities, including recreation centers, daycare facilities, computer centers, parks, and playgrounds. Moreover, they have tackled major contemporary social issues, taking on roles that colleges and universities do not normally play. They have established crime pr evention programs, provided services for the homeless, and sponsored energy conservation counseling and testing efforts. Some have also created affordable housing opportunities in their communities. Others have worked with communities to create opportunities for small businesses.
Anchor institutions create educational, training, and job opportunities for individuals and families. In addition to their educational opportunities for more traditional students, many OUP grantees have established adult education initiatives, including literacy, jobs training, vocational training, General Education Development (GED) preparation, and self-improvement. They have also contributed to the health and well-being of communities by establishing community gardens, daycare centers, health and wellness facilities, and substance abuse counseling programs. They have even set up tutoring, mentoring, and educational enrichment opportunities for children and youth, investing now in the success of the future innovators and leaders of our nation.
Facilitators of Change 9
In many of these scenarios briefly mentioned above, OUP grantees have stepped in to fill a void, after listening to community residents describe their needs. That may be the most important lesson of all—listening to the community and empowering its residents with the ability to act in their own interest. To this end, grantees
have created forums for community dialogue and empowerment. They have provided training in community capacity-building for sustainability and, together with community leaders, have assisted in the development and implementation of comprehensive plans for housing, land use, conservation, historic preservation, environmental sustainability, and economic development.
OUP’s Partnerships With Anchor Institutions
With 18 years’ experience in facilitating effective campus-community collaborations, OUP is uniquely qualified to facilitate partnerships between anchor institutions. The Office’s IHE grantees have been playing this role in their communities for a very long time. Its programs encompass diverse populations (African Americans, Alaska Natives, Hispanics, Native Hawaiians, and Tribal communities), diverse types of IHEs (community colleges,
4-year colleges, research universities), and diverse types of communities. The common thread in all these examples is that its grantees all offer real-life practical solutions to real problems. Community partnerships have always been a cornerstone requirement for every IHE-based OUP grant.
OUP has also recognized that matching and leveraging resources are important. Demonstration of the capacity for this resourcefulness has also been another major factor in winning OUP funding. Grantees learned how to reach out to find the financial backing not only to support their grant program efforts, but also to ensure the sustainability of those efforts once the OUP grant periods came to an end. Indeed, OUP grants can be likened to drops of water that ripple outward, having an impact on the entire community.
The knowledge and experience that grantees have gained by winning funding to initiate their programs and subsequently learning how to sustain programs when funding has come to an end constitute a valuable
resource. OUP now has the ability to harness and share this grantee knowledge with other institutions seeking to accomplish similar successes in their communities. Grantee experiences are even more valuable, particularly at
a time when the pool of available funding for government programs of all kinds grows ever smaller. OUP and its grantees have lessons to teach to those IHEs that are continuing to seek funding for community and economic development projects (see Exhibit 5). In the sections that follow are descriptions of some successful OUP
projects where grantees have become anchors in their own communities.
OUP’