Building Partnerships and Rebuilding Communities:

Bringing COPC to Montclair State University

By Kathryn A. Hammond

 
    As we move into the 21st century we are faced with unprecedented challenges and social problems. The ever-increasing severity and scope of such dilemmas stresses the urgency for informed research and social policies. The ways in which we have traditionally addressed problems related to the environment, health, education, and our communities are no longer appropriate. It is critical that we turn to innovative styles of research in order to remedy these complex social problems and meet the needs of individuals and communities.

    Our current research and development strategies are driven by the interests of businesses, government and military agencies, and academic institutions (at an annual expense of $170 billion) (Sclove, Scammell, and Holland, 1998). The research techniques of these large-scale organizations and institutions reflect a conventional approach that casts researchers in the role of the expert. In the effort to ensure objectivity, this model encourages the expert to maintain a comfortable distance from the research subject. Rather than mobilizing their training and skills in service of a social problem, experts and individuals remain isolated from each other.

    This detached style of research does little for furthering civic engagement. Until recently, there has been only modest incentive and regard for researchers who address, struggle with, and try to remedy real-world problems. In many cases those that engage in this kind of analysis find their work trivialized. Research results fall prey to being recast to fit narrow disciplinary provisions and debate (Ansley and Gaventa, 1997). Such a cycle devalues common everyday knowledge and inevitably leads to the disempowerment of common everyday people (Ansley and Gaventa, 1997).
 

      Consider for instance how the traditional model of research has approached the problem of urban decline. Businesses and residents have abandoned urban areas thus placing limitations on the relationships and local networks necessary to address or prevent further decay (Carr, 2000; Schorr, 1997). Attempts to rectify the complex social problems of urban decline have been dominated by powerful and isolated institutions far removed from these ailing communities. Research is conducted without considering how such powerful institutions can assist and rally communities to solve their own unique troubles.

    Universities, philanthropic institutions, the government, and the media have been emphasizing the deficiencies, needs, and problems of our ailing urban communities (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996). Focusing on these negative aspects encourages a self fulfilling prophecy of deterioration- i.e. neighborhood residents believe they live in empty places with empty people lacking in the drive to do things for each other (Kretzmann and McKnight,1996). Many communities (along with the individuals that live in them) have become dependent on the research and solutions of experts with no motivation or awareness of the real possibilities for change (Cortez, 2001).

    Decisions regarding declining urban communities have been traditionally informed by the results of needs surveys conducted by universities and colleges. In turn, philanthropic organizations fund programs on the basis of deficiencies highlighted by traditional needs surveys (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996). This process fails to produce positive impact and change. In the hope of stopping further decline, many institutions are breaking from the traditional mold and reconsidering their ways of tackling these issues. Universities in particular are changing the way they view their surrounding communities.
 

    While the social fabric of urban communities continues to fray, institutions of higher education remain as leading sources of economic and technological power, with an abundance of creative faculty and students (Carr, 2000). The longstanding location of these powerful institutions in the context of their decaying urban centers has not however brought about a flood of civic engagement activities among faculty, students and neighborhood residents (Boyer, 1994). In fact, university-community relationships have long been referred to as a “disconnect” (Coye, 1997; Hollander and Saltmarsh, 2000).

    Even though higher education and American society have been historically intertwined, the Cold War encouraged a concentration of intellectual efforts on the demands of the military-industrial complex while neglecting local problems and issues (Boyer, 1994; Hollander and Saltmarsh, 2000; Maloney, 2000). This emphasis led to structural, administrative, and academic shifts that placed an enormous amount of value and credibility on objectivity, detachment, and the scientific enterprise (Hollander and Saltmarsh, 2000; Maloney, 2000). Such values encouraged disciplines to specialize, thus limiting the exchange of information with different perspectives. Narrowing definitions of faculty scholarship has drawn faculty out of the community and into a secluded classroom.

    Universities underwent a “mission creep” where mission statements were uniformly written to satisfy the demands of public relations (Holland, 1999). They embraced  one size fits all statements emphasizing a faculty and research centered model of scholarship. This systematic approach ignored the unique characteristics and needs of local communities (Boyer, 1994; Coye, 1997) while placing more emphasis and attention on the campus community.

    There is now emerging support for the idea that colleges and universities have an obligation to revitalize their surrounding communities. One persuasive advocate, Earnest Boyer, emphasized the importance of focusing on the service role of the university when seeking bonds with a community (Boyer, 1994; Coye, 1997). Although service is often addressed in institutional missions, there are few occasions when faculty are rewarded and encouraged to engage in service oriented research and activities (Boyer, 1994). Yet valuing service and bringing experts and students out of the secluded ivory towers in the pursuit of problem- solving research  mutually benefits the university as well as the community (Coye, 1997).
 

    Today we are witnessing an emergence of research principles and guidelines that promote reciprocal relationships between institutions of higher education and communities. Rather than treating individuals and communities as objects, studies are conducted by, with or for communities (Sclove, Scammell, and Holland, 1998; Schorr, 1998).  There are many manifestations of this approach: participatory research, collaborative research, community-based research, etc. (Ansley and Gaventa, 1997).

    Some have turned to Dutch Science Shops as models for conducting research in the community setting (Sclove, Scammell, and Holland, 1998). (The Netherlands is highly regarded as having one of the world’s premier systems for conducting community-based research.)  In the science shop model, Dutch universities have established a network of community research centers comprised of faculty and student interns. The centers conduct and coordinate research activities. The defining feature of this network is that community members pose the research questions while experts and university students present a solution. More importantly, the Dutch Science Shops have evolved into a cost effective problem-solving agent, handling roughly 2000 inquiries per year (Sclove, Scammell, and Holland, 1998).

    Like the Dutch Science Shops, the Policy Research Action Group (PRAG) acts as a collaborative research affiliation between universities and community-based organizations in Chicago (Axel-Lute, 2000). Four universities (Loyola University, Chicago, the University of Illinois, DePaul University, and Chicago State University) united with thirteen community-based organizations to provide an internship program meant to bring students into organizations as workers (under the supervision of a faculty member). In addition, community-based organizations submit research proposals. PRAG'S co-chairs (comprised of members of the universities and community-based organizations) select which proposals will be implemented. Work and credit for conducting projects are shared between the university and the organizations.

    The university of Illinois’s East St. Louis Action Research Project (ESLARP) is another widely recognized example of a successful community-university partnership (Reardon, 1999). ESLARP was formed in responce to the perseverance of a large number of community activists, elected officials, university faculty, students, interns and volunteers. All were partnered under the common interests of solving problems through the application of knowledge, creativity, skills, and commitment. Project undertakings of this thirteen-year relationship have been addressed by multiple disciplines (e.g. urban and regional planning, sociology, law, architecture, etc). Activities revolve around neighborhood outreach, community research, and various revitalization projects. Students play an integral role as data collectors, analyzers, and presenters of information and research results. All of this work has been developed and performed under the premise that these relationships are long term. In addition to sustainability, community members define, oversee and contribute to the direction of the projects.

    Such examples illustrate a break from tradition that yields vast improvements for local neighborhoods. They highlight the ability of universities to solve local problems in the spirit of collaboration. They recognize the importance of exchange between community members and institutions. Communication and the use of many perspectives open the floodgates for new strategies in problem-solving. Faculty and students come out of the classroom and into the community to learn from each other, local officials, religious leaders, and neighbors.

    Making this connection between the campus and local community ensures a holistic, fulfilling, and relevant college experiences for students (Coye, 1997). Traditionally students learn about abstract concepts in the classroom with little regard for real-world application. Engaging in experiential learning (such as service-learning or internships) gives the student the necessary context and experiences to make connections between theory and practice (Boyer, 1994; Coye, 1997). As an engaged campus, faculty and students have a common interest in pursuing scholarly work that serves the needs of the community. Students forgo the idea that they are passive learners and with faculty support, learn to respond with the flexibility needed when addressing real-life issues and dilemmas (Statham, Mason and Letven, 2000).

    University-community projects produce results that benefit many community members as well as establish trusting social relationships and social efficacy (Sclove, Scammell, and Holland, 1998). In partnering with their community organizations, local government, school districts and public housing authorities, institutions of higher education are assisting in the revitalization of economic, social and physical aspects of their surrounding communities. With its students, faculty and employees, the academic institution is a source of creative ideas, expertise and manpower. By partnering with local organizations, universities have the means to transform their communities (Carr, 2000).

    The federal government recognizes the positive impact and problem-solving capabilities of community-university partnerships and endorses this approach by funding Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC). The COPC program was created by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1994. HUD’s primary goal is to provide incentive for institutions of higher education to collaborate with community partners for the revitalization of low- to moderate-income areas. Each year HUD grants approximately 8 million dollars to 16 colleges and universities for the development of COPC's that are driven by and implemented with community partners. (Only one application is accepted per institution.) Each institution can request a maximum of $400,000, which will be spent over the course of three years.

    Grants are awarded to community colleges, four-year colleges and universities to establish and operate a COPC specifically designed to concentrate on the problems associated with an urban area. (An urban area is one that consists of a minimum of 2,500 residents.) Grantees are to address these problems with a multidisciplinary approach while working in conjunction with community organizations, local governments, and the private sector. Requesting a multidisciplinary approach reflects the belief that such a plan increases the likelihood of problem-solving when grappling with complex urban problems. Collaboration with community organizations is meant to discourage the college or university from treating the community as if it were a laboratory while  rewarding those that attend to the urban problems at hand.

    As specified in the grant application instructions, the needs of an urban area must be identified by community residents and organizations rather than  the educational institution. Applicants must identify three or more urban problems that can be addressed through research efforts. Each problem in turn must have its own separate and distinct problem-solving activity. Such activities might address issues related to housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, health care, job training, education, crime prevention, planning, environmental concerns, or community organizing. The grant calls for COPC's that facilitate outreach, technical assistance, and information exchange activities; funds granted by HUD cannot be used for construction or physical housing rehabilitation.

  HUD’s criteria for selecting the COPC grantee is determined by the score an institution receives on its proposal. Those applications that fall between 70 and 100 points are considered for funding. In applying for the grant it is essential for the University to showcase its ability in fulfilling five key factors (as specified in the proposal application). Successfully fulfilling these requirements ensures a high score for a COPC grant application. The factors are as follows:
 

 Factor 1 – Outreach, technical assistance and applied research should be provided to neighborhoods and neighborhood-based organizations on the basis of what the residents decide is needed, rather than what the institution concludes is appropriate for the neighborhood.

•  Factor 2 – Community-based organizations and residents should be empowered by the project and should be partners throughout the life of the project and beyond, from planning to implementation to activities beyond the grant.

• Factor 3—Applied research should be related to the outreach activities and should be used to influence the university’s activities within the grant period or shortly after it ends. HUD will not fund research without practical application.

• Factor 4 – The assistance provided should be primarily by faculty, students or to a limited extent, by neighborhood residents or community-based organizations funded by the university.

• Factor 5 –The program should be part of the institutions broader efforts to meet its urban mission, and be supported by its senior officials, rather than just the work of a few faculty members.

    As a way of extending its urban mission and reach into the Montclair community, members of the Montclair State University campus engaged in the long and rigorous process of building and submitting the COPC grant proposal. In response to HUD’s guiding principle, members of the Montclair State University consulted with leaders and residents in the local Montclair community. These individuals represented members of the school board, religious institutions, nonprofit organizations and residents of the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods.

    Montclair State University facilitated frequent meetings with its community partners. The University hosted a town meeting in order to promote small group discussion among members of the university and neighborhood residents. Such encounters allowed for the University and it's neighbors to familiarize themselves with each other. Responding to the expressed needs of the Pine Street and Glenfield Park residents, Montclair State University has proposed activities that address the following areas: education, community organizing, and housing.

    The Pine Street and Glenfield Park residents have indicated they are in need of a way to increase their knowledge about their neighborhoods. As a way of meeting this need, Montclair State has proposed the construction of a GIS database for the local neighborhoods. The database will enable community organizations and residents, as well as university faculty and students to produce maps highlighting local assets and housing characteristics.  Given the relative newness of using GIS technologies as a community building tool, a detailed discussion of the software and its capabilities follows.
 

Geographic Information Systems as an Innovative Tool

    Usually when we evoke the concept of a map, the observer envisions a diagram of an area showing lines that represent roads and rivers, green blocks representing parks and preserves, as well as the usual words and numbers that indicate the name of a city, town or highway. We often understimate of the power of maps as visual aids. In fact, some such as Edward Tufte remind us that maps allow the observer to leave the flatland of paper and offer a descriptive image we can easily understand (Tufte, 1999)

    The way people view their neighborhoods, towns and cities has dramatically changed with the advent of the computer technology known as GIS (Geographic Information Systems). A GIS is used to generate detailed, up to date information about a community in the form of digital maps (Mitchell, 1998). This technology allows researchers, local government officials, or residents to produce maps of spatial and attribute data (Carnahan, 2000). Spatial data consists of anything that can be referenced on the surface of the earth, e.g. roads, bodies of water, and buildings. Attribute data provide descriptions such as the number of people living in a household, the locations of social service agencies, as well as characteristics of neighborhood residents. Both spatial and attribute data are accessible through federal sources (the Census Bureau or U.S. Geological Survey), as well as via state and local governments. They can be generated by the researcher according to the interests or needs of local organizations and community members (Carnahan, 2000). Like a word processor or spreadsheet software, a GIS has the capacity to combine this information to generate a large, colorful, and informative map (Betts, 1997).

    GIS databases have predominantly been used by government agencies and the natural sciences. A GIS can assist the researcher in analyzing land use and infrastructure management, tracking animal migration routes, monitoring the consequences of human activity on the environment, as well as documenting the changes and condition of the earths vegetation, atmosphere, subsurface, etc  (Carnahan, 2000; www.usgs.gov). In addition, a GIS technology can also yield practical information for a variety of public and private enterprises across multiple disciplines (Daring and Nealon, 2000).

    Although the use of GIS technology is also common in large scale urban and regional planning, it is especially appropriate for neighborhood planning and other projects at the local level (Al-Kodmany, 2000). Many community groups and organizations have introduced GIS technologies and produce digital maps to answer a variety of questions, such as the following:

 “What are the housing characteristics of our community?”
HACE, a non-profit community development corporation in Philadelphia uses a GIS to help depressed neighborhoods acquire funds for revitalization (Mithcell, 1997: www.hacedc.org).

 “Where is crime committed?”
Police officers in Pittsburgh track trends in drug dealing and crime with a GIS (Mitchell, 1997).

“How can we improve our service delivery?”
Child welfare workers locate available services in the community of their clientele via GIS software and a laptop computer (Robertson and Wier, 1998).

    A map can display information in a manner that is easily understood by a variety of audiences while performing a wide range of critical functions (Daring and Nealon, 2000). Such visualizations introduce ease when preparing for presentations and proposals, and sharing ideas with others (Carnahan, 2000). GIS maps convert complex information (which is usually in the form of raw numbers or percentages) into vivid and meaningful pictures that display details of a particular region or community (Robertson and Wier, 1998). The visual nature of maps can act as a communication tool and further create productive relationships between decision-makers and residents (thus minimizing confusion and misunderstanding)  (Al-Kodmany, 2000). Using a map as a tool can further the ability of community individuals and organizations to gain the support of key decision-makers on crucial issues (Al-Kodmany, 2000).

    Employing this technology in community organizations, however, is usually challenging due to the lack of available funds to purchase the necessary technology. Other obstacles might also include recruiting ample individuals to record, find, and enter community data (Al-Kodmany, 2000). It is essential for entities such as institutions of higher education to assist communities in acquiring this tool. HUD’s COPC program provides the opportunity for universities to support local community organizations to overcome these barriers.

    If granted a COPC, Montclair faculty and students will build a GIS framework for the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods. The foundation of this project rests on the idea of versatility. The GIS technology will allow for a number of projects that are designed specifically to meet the unique needs of the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods. Implementing mapping projects will bring together individuals of many backgrounds and perspectives, setting the stage for problem-solving and solutions.

    Rather than encouraging research projects dominated by the university, GIS projects will be determined by the community. Neighborhood residents will decide the questions this technology will address. Some maps might be produced to answer questions about lot history, whether a building has been renovated, if a sight was previously used for industrial purposes, or for documenting change in the neighborhood with regard to housing costs.

    Neighborhood residents, Montclair State University faculty and students of the departments of earth and environmental studies, sociology, anthropology, and The Institute for Community Studies will work together during mapping projects. University and community collaboration will supply the necessary manpower to carry out data collection and entry. Allowing for flexibility and resident involvement in the planning and execution of the mapping projects will encourage long term relationships without losing touch with the people it is intended to serve (Carr, 2000; Reardon, 1999).

    Montclair State University is confident that this technology will offer technical assistance to the community in making informed decisions, as well as presenting a clear case when trying to articulate community concerns. Since access to accurate data and information about communities is critical, information and maps produced with this technology will be made available to the community via an interactive website. (Visit the Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles (NKLA) website to learn how users of this COPC site can obtain information about properties, tenant organizing, homeownership counseling, and other community development objectives (Richman and Kawano, 2000).

    The University envisions the COPC grant as an opportunity to become further invested in and accountable for its community. Engaging in this grant has enabled the University to gain knowledge about the resources and assets of its surrounding neighborhoods. In formulating this working relationship, community members have learned that the university is not an adversary but rather a resource in building a strong community.
 
 

To the Institute for Community Studies Home Page