A Comparison of IHEs and Non-IHEs as Anchor Institutions and Lead Agents of Promise Neighborhoods Projects

Place-based initiatives, such as the federal Promise Neighborhoods grant, attempt to coordinate interventions, supports, and services with a myriad of organizations to targeted communities. Although Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), inclusive of academic medical institutions, are among the most overall researched anchor institution, Non-Institutions of Higher Education (NIHEs) have led more Promise Neighborhood grants since the inception of the program in 2010. Therefore, this study compared the revitalization efforts proposed by IHEs ( n = 5) and NIHE ( n = 5) in their applications for Promise Neighborhoods grants awarded between 2016 and 2018. Although similarities existed within and across the applications from NIHEs and IHEs, namely focused on improving academics and health/wellness, the specific interventions, supports, and services proposed by each lead institution largely reflected the individual needs of the targeted communities. The findings from this study illustrate how IHEs and NIHEs are similarly positioned to effectuate change within their communities. Implementing place-based initiatives requires anchor institutions to allocate considerable time and resources in order to adapt to the current needs of the community in real time. Therefore, future lead agents of Promise Neighborhoods should seek to promote an environment that fosters on-going collaboration and mutual trust across and within multiple stakeholders, while also exploring sustainability efforts to extend gains made beyond the duration of the grant.

Types of Anchor Institution Initiatives

Interest in universities as anchor institutions within their communities and cities is growing as civic leaders search for ways to build local wealth. Systematic analysis of the effects of anchor institution initiatives remains difficult due to the disparate nature of anchor initiatives and a relative lack of a shared language describing the work. This article reviews the anchor literature to summarize current understandings of universities and economic development, then develops a typology of anchor institution initiatives based upon the literature. The typology is based upon the type of capital leveraged by initiatives: (a) financial, (b) physical, (c) intellectual, and (d) human. The author then uses the typology to categorize a number of initiatives found within the literature and through a rough sampling process. This typology offers a shared language for scholars to use to guide discussions around universities as anchor institutions, and, more importantly, the typology can frame analyses of the differential effects, costs, and benefits of different anchor strategies.

Unlocking inclusive growth by linking micro assets to anchor institutions: The case of skilled overseas migrants and refugees and hospital jobs

This paper contributes to anchor institution, migrant and refugee integration, skills utilisation and inclusive growth debates. Via a pioneering innovative approach to inclusive urban development linking together physical infrastructure development and neighbourhood management approaches to urban regeneration, it explores the potential for micro assets within communities to be linked to macro assets of large spatially immobile anchor institutions. Through a case study, it draws on experience, and identifies transferable learning points, from a skills-matching element of a large European Union funded project in a superdiverse inner-city deprived neighbourhood in Birmingham, UK. In contrast to the typical emphasis of area-based employment initiatives on people with low skills, the skills-matching initiative focuses specifically on connecting skilled overseas migrants and refugees to skilled and highly skilled jobs in a large local hospital. It underlines the central role of local partnership working and highlights the role of skills utilisation, not merely skills development, in inclusive growth. The evidence suggests that three components underlie success in unlocking and catalysing links between micro assets and a macro asset to realise anchor institution potential: (1) institutional entrepreneurship, which provides the strategic buy-in from the anchor institution; (2) innovative entrepreneurship, which provides the delegated responsibility for implementation; and (3) vision and place leadership, which provides the strategy and resources to build the bridge between the macro asset and the local community to help realise inclusive growth.

From Transactional to Transformational

This analysis of the supplier relationship between Drexel University and Aramark offers a demonstration of the potential for intensifying an anchor institution’s local economic inclusion strategies by leveraging the economic power of supplier partnerships. The operation of a major food service contract represents a substantial set of campus jobs and procurement, but this economic activity often remains outside the remit of economic inclusion efforts when the institution has no contractual influence over it. When an anchor institution can partner with a major supplier that shares a commitment to community impact, it offers opportunities to strengthen an anchor strategy. This article describes how Drexel University and Aramark used their campus food service relationship to deepen Drexel’s anchor mission and core strategic priorities and Aramark’s enterprise sustainability agenda, including the value of the negotiation process, and a set of outcomes in the form of initiatives in food insecurity, local economic inclusion and community engagement, research and technology transfer, and student co-op employment. Both the relationship building process and its outcomes offer a model for other institutions as they look to leverage the untapped economic activity of the major service suppliers.

Mamelodi Pre-University Academy

The University of Pretoria adopted an anchor institution strategy and designated the Mamelodi Campus as a Faculty with a focus on community engagement with the primary goal of broadening educational pathways to post-secondary school attainment. This paper provides an overview of how two strategic goals of the University namely, widening access and success and strengthening social responsiveness have manifested over a decade through designating STEM access programmes to a campus located in the impoverished township, Mamelodi. The anchor mission entails improvement of the access programmes through incorporating the student voice, as well the improvement of After-School Programmes (ASPs) by formalizing a Pre-University Academy (PUA). The PUA is a signature academic programme geared towards fostering articulation between the high school initiatives, access programmes and the mainstream programmes to ensure a seamless transition from secondary school to graduation. The paper provides lessons drawn from the provision of the programmes which resulted in “forward and backward” articulation to close the school-university gap while addressing systemic educational problems left by the legacy of apartheid. The paper further elaborates on the process followed to cement the anchor mission through the PUA as well as make recommendations to strengthen anchor institution strategy efforts in similar contexts.

Transforming Schools, Communities, and Universities

The chapter describes the university-assisted community school approach developed by Penn's Netter Center for Community Partnerships with its school and community partners since 1985, as well as adapted nationally. The approach is grounded in John Dewey's theory that the neighborhood school can function as the core neighborhood institution that provides comprehensive services, galvanizes other community partners, and helps solve locally-manifested, universal problems such as health inequities and unequal education. Academically-based community service is presented as a core strategy for engaging the Penn's academic resources with the schools and community. Penn's evolution towards becoming a democratic anchor institution is discussed to highlight the importance of engaging the full resources (academic and economic) of the university in community partnerships. Providing concrete examples from nearly 35 years of work, the authors argue that university-assisted community schools is a promising approach to significantly improve schooling, communities, and universities.

Building Capactiy as Anchor Institutions:

As campuses embrace their role as anchor institutions, considerations should be given to the role of infrastructure, structure, and strategy. This article differentiates between infrastructure and organizational structure then identifies implications for determining who should be involved based upon the institutional and community goals. Resources and infrastructure—a center or office that supports and coordinates community engagement—has been noted as a key component to the institutionalization of community engagement (Welch & Saltmarsh, 2013). How might the infrastructure used to support community engagement differ from the anchor institution mission? This article will illustrate potential differences and similarities while offering recommendations and considerations that would be useful as campuses develop their anchor institution plans.