The Obama presidency ushered in many educational initiatives, including a more comprehensive look at what role universities and colleges might take in strengthening communities. The idea of an “anchor institution” has been in play for several decades as scholars, politicians, activists and others considered the many ways that placed-based nonprofits impacted their surrounding communities. Institutions of higher education and hospitals (“eds and meds”) can have an outside effect, particularly in our ever-shifting economy, in changing schools, health care, housing, and a wide range of other community factors.
Two researchers, Rita Hodges, who is at the Netter Center for Community Partnerships at the University of Pennsylvania, and Steve Dubb, who is a consultant, editor, and independent expert on community economic development, contributed to the work in 2012 with their book, The Road Half Traveled: University Engagement at the Crossroads. It’s a systematic examination of ten institutions of higher education that have made an intentional commitment to engage with their communities. Emory University, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis, LeMoyne-Owen College, Miami Dade College, Portland State University, Syracuse University, University of Cincinnati, University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University were chosen because of their intentional community efforts.
Following a solid overview of community engagement and “town-gown” history, the authors propose that the research clusters the institutions into three general groups. These are not hard categories but instead tendencies or priorities of community efforts. “Facilitating” institutions work closely with community partners to build capacity as an end in itself, work across the institution, and have strong programs for service learning and community based research. “Leading” institutions, which are wealthier, have similar strong programs but tend to focus more on comprehensive neighborhood revitalization. The institution’s economic heft plays a large role for these universities. “Convening” institutions, on the other hand, have fewer economic resources and tend to be contributing players. While they, too, share strong programs, convening institutions build capacity as part of a larger effort. The authors stress that these groupings are best used to understand the larger terrain of anchor institutions and community development.
The study underscores the generalized benefits of focused place-based community efforts, ranging from improved student outcomes to greater economic development. When institutions do this systematically, the authors contend, they pursue an “anchor institution mission.”
Reading the ten case studies in toto also highlighted, at least to me, the great attention that has be given to each institution’s particular community, history and circumstances when considering successful engagement. There is no one recipe, although a few ingredients appear consistently. The authors spend a good bit of time examining the college’s presidents and their teams – and it is for good reason. Anchor institutions do not just emerge. They have to be crafted, engineered, and monitored for a longer period of time before they take root – and they do not happen without presidential support. For some institutions a crisis spurred the effort. In others, it was particular relationships. However, there does not seem to be any one set of factors that propel institutions toward and anchor mission.
That realization leads to a more difficult question to answer, one that sits near the book but not within its scope: Why should an institution of higher education pursue an anchor mission? The outcomes are consistently positive, but other initiatives could be as well. If a university’s leadership team has a limited number of discretionary dollars and hours to allocate, why should community groups have priority over disciplinary organizations or alumni?
I see little evidence that that moral claims – institutions “should” do this or that – can sustain the push towards many colleges and universities becoming an anchor institution. It is difficult work that requires significant commitment over time. The work of Hodges and Dubb is good on the “how” of becoming an anchor institution and the “what” that has happened, but not the “why.” If we are going to see more significant changes in higher education’s relationship with the communities we serve, we need to give more systematic attention to the factors that could lead to an institution changing its mission and seeking anchor status – and perhaps give more consideration to community engagement as a key measure in an institution’s effectiveness.
David Potash