To Communities Linking Colleges

Linking Colleges to Communities Engaging the University for Community Development The Democracy Collaborative at The University of Maryland August 2007 Linking Colleges to Communities Engaging the University for Community Development The Democracy Collaborative at The University of Maryland Principal Author Steve Dubb Preface & Conclusion Ted Howard August 2007 Copyright © 2007 by The Democracy Collaborative The Democracy Collaborative 1140-F Tydings Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Published in the United States of America in 2007 by The Democracy Collaborative All rights reserved Table of Contents List of Figures iv Preface v Acknowledgements vi Introduction 1 Section One: Universities and the Federal Government 9 The Birth of the “People’s” Colleges 11 The Rise of the Mass University Model 14 Deepening of the Postwar Model 18 Bayh-Dole and the Rise of University-Business Partnerships 21 Section Two: Innovation at the Margins—The Return of Community Research 25 The Federal Government and the Slow Rise of Reform 27 The Rising Role of State Policy 37 How Foundations Have Helped Shape University Policy 42 Section Three: Tentative Steps on the Long and Winding Road to Engagement 49 The Rise of Service-Learning and the New Movement for Civic Education 51 Building a Nexus Between Campus and Community: The Partnership Center 56 Leveraging University Assets for Community Development 62 Creating Cultural Change: Envisioning the Engaged University 68 Section Four: Building For the Future 75 Engaging Students 77 Engaging Faculty 80 Engaging University Leaders 83 Policies for an Engaged University 87 Community Engagement and the Catalytic Role of Philanthropy 91 Conclusion: Awakening the Sleeping Giant 95 Endnotes 105 Appendix A: Resources for University Engagement 124 Appendix B: Interview Subjects and Contributors 135 About The Democracy Collaborative 138 iii List of Figures Introduction Figure 1: Overview of Selected Federal University Policy Initiatives 2 Figure 2: Federal University Community-Building Initiatives 4 Figure 3: State University Community-Building Initiatives 5 Figure 4: Overview of Selected Foundation Efforts 6 Figure 5: Engaged University Practices 7 Figure 6: Engagement Priorities within the University 7 Figure 7: External Support for University Reform 7 Section One: Universities and the Federal Government Figure 8: The Federal Land Grant Model 12 Figure 9: The Mass University Model 17 Figure 10: Cold War University—Key Elements 20 Figure 11: Bayh-Dole 22 Section Two: Innovation at the Margins—The Return of Community Research Figure 12: Strategies to Leverage Federal Government to Support University Community Development Efforts 28 Figure 13: State Government University Strategies 38 Figure 14: Foundation University Strategies 43 Section Three: Tentative Steps on the Long and Winding Road to Engagement Figure 15: Service-Learning 53 Figure 16: Community Partnership Strategies—Overview 58 Figure 17: Leveraging the University 63 Figure 18: Building Cultural Change 71 Section Four: Building For the Future Figure 19: Building Student Engagement 78 Figure 20: Building Faculty Engagement 81 Figure 21: Providing Administrative Support for Engagement 85 Figure 22: Policy Measures to Support Engagement 88 iv Preface Ted Howard Our nation’s more than 4,000 public and private colleges and universities are increasingly referred to as “anchor” in- stitutions. With rare exceptions, once established they almost never move location. Thus, they have a vested interest in building strong relationships with the neighborhoods that surround their campuses. As such, they are a tremendous potential resource for strengthening America’s communities, particularly in this era of diminishing federal support for local economic and social development. Universities employ two million workers (one-third of who are faculty), enroll more than 15 million students, possess endowments of over $300 billion, hold more than $100 billion in real estate, and purchase hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and services annually. In short, they are economic engines of considerable power in our nation. Over the past few decades many faculty, students, and administrators have struggled to create space to utilize these resources and break down the isolation to which universities have too often succumbed. There are scores of outstanding examples of campuses that have begun to harness their scholarly and economic power to directly benefit society outside the walls of the campus. These university-community partnerships are becoming an important element in reinvigorating our civic life. Yet, overall, higher education remains a “sleeping giant” when it comes to strategically using its considerable resources to meet the challenges facing our communities, particularly the needs of our most disadvantaged citizens. This report seeks to answer the question: “How might this sleeping giant be awakened to benefit our communities?” History shows that universities are highly susceptible to outside influences that have shaped their research, teach- ing, and institutional agendas. As the following pages demonstrate, dating back to the 1860s, federal and state policy; funding from government, corporate, and philanthropic sources; and student and faculty pressure have altered the direction of higher education. From the federal government’s creation of the land-grant system (the “people’s” colleges) and passage of the GI bill to foundation-supported efforts that have produced entire new fields of academic research and study, higher education has time and again responded to external forces and embraced new directions. In our own day, how can public policy and foundation grantmaking power encourage universities to become more directly and usefully involved in the life of their surrounding communities? What incentives can be put in place to move higher education to a new level of engagement with communities and to significantly leverage the flow of university resources to help meet community needs? In this report, we review the history of policy and funding decisions that have shaped the agenda and direction of higher education. We survey the growing movement for university community engagement from service-learning and community-based research to university financial strategies that are investing many tens of millions of dollars annually in community development. And in the conclusion of this report, we suggest a strategic framework by which America’s foundations, in particular, could play a catalytic role in awakening the sleeping giant of higher education. v Acknowledgements This report reflects the contributions of several dozen individuals who have provided us with their insights at some point in this project. Without their input, suggestions, and hard-won experience, this work would simply not have been possible. A number of people read and commented on segments or entire drafts of the manuscript. Chuck Hotchkiss, a former lead organizer of the Granite State Organizing Project, who now teaches at the School of Community Eco- nomic Development at Southern New Hampshire University, line-edited the entire manuscript, vastly improving its readability. Many thanks too to Michael Swack, Dean of the School of Community Economic Development, for re- cruiting Chuck to review the manuscript. John Burkhardt, Director of the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, was also of enormous assistance. A colleague of Burkhardt’s, Josh Gottlieb, a graduate student at the School of Education at the University of Michigan, provided extensive comments that greatly improved this report. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Harry Boyte, Cathy Burack, Richard Cook, Richard Couto, Alisa Cunningham, Pablo Eisenberg, Ira Harkavy, Barbara Holland, Elizabeth Hollander, Katherine Kravetz, Vic- tor Rubin, and Lorilee Sandmann. Harry Boyte and Katherine Kravetz both highlighted the importance of cultural change to develop truly engaged universities. Cathy Burack emphasized the obstacle the legacy of the German “research university” system (the ivory tower model) places on engaged university efforts today. Pablo Eisenberg stressed the importance of leadership to move an engagement agenda forward. Richard Cook called our attention to the importance of the settlement house movement of the early 1900s as an early precedent of university engagement in ur- ban centers. Richard Couto stressed the importance of linking the case for engagement to student learning outcomes. Alisa Cunningham pointed out how the recent rise of tribal colleges was linked to past failures in U.S. American Indian education policy. Ira Harkavy encouraged us to put forth our own recommendations more forcefully, which we have endeavored to do in the conclusion to this report. Barbara Holland provided very extensive comments and encouraged us to emphasize the leadership role of community colleges in engagement efforts. Victor Rubin called our attention to the Economic Development Center program of the Commerce Department, as well as the pay scan- dal that hit the University of California. Given the fast pace of developments in community engagement, Barbara Holland, Elizabeth Hollander, and Lorilee Sandmann all provided invaluable assistance in helping us appropriately update the report where appropriate. Thanks also to Barbara Berglund, who helped edit the final report. It was not possible to incorporate all of the feedback we received. Still, we hope our reviewers will appreciate

Load more