Community-campus partnerships, collective impact, and poverty reduction

Schwartz, Karen; Weaver, Liz; Pei, Natasha; Miller, Annie

doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1128955

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the many responsibilities implicated in this role, we have emphasized the brokerage of power as essential for establishing equity in partnerships and identifying actors' positionality. Power dynamics have been recognized as a key feature in establishing effective relationships (Schwartz, Weaver, Pei, & Miller, 2016), and investigating power asymmetries clarifies the challenges of facilitating community-driven work in "community-university-based brokering initiatives" (Levkoe & Stack-Cutler, 2018). The role of a broker establishes CU Engage as the central boundary spanner (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010), and in this sense, CU Engage is responsible for being attentive to power differentials across boundaries (e.g., being aware of contexts being bridged, the positionality of each person, and how relationships are negotiated).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Challenges of Putting Community First: Reflections on a University Center’s Process

Wegemer¹,

Tivaringe²,

Hildreth³

et al. 2020

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to share tensions experienced by the Center for Community-Based Learning and Engagement (CU Engage) at the University of Colorado Boulder during its attempts to facilitate social justice-oriented community change. These tensions speak to larger questions about the goals of communitycampus engagement (CCE) programs, especially regarding the nature of power, interests, and definitions of community and impact. This paper documents CU Engage's learning process through three illustrative stages: an exploratory community-based project, a qualitative self-study, and a collaboratively generated conceptual framework for public impact. Through this process, CU Engage has begun to develop an approach that applies, extends, and complicates existing frameworks of collective impact and community first. Tensions that arose highlight three imperatives: (1) integration of participatory processes into CCE programs to supplement organizational partnerships with direct community input, (2) attention to power and structural constraints in community-centered work, and (3) creation of conceptual tools that guide collaborative work. The Center for Community-Based Learning and Engagement (CU Engage) was launched at the University of Colorado Boulder in 2014. Prior to this, the university had a number of well-established service-learning programs located in different units across campus; the creation of CU Engage organized them into one administrative and academic unit. The motivating vision was that CU Engage could become more than the sum of its parts; in collaboration with community partners, major impacts could be produced by leveraging existing programs and the broader resources of the university. CU Engage worked toward fulfilling this vision through a deliberate process that involved three separate stages, each utilizing different methodological approaches. First, the center mapped stakeholders, conducted ethnographic research, and held dialogic cafecitos with residents in a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project with the goal of understanding the local landscape 54 | CHRISTOPHER WEGEMER, TAFADZWA TIVARINGE, ROUDY HILDRETH, JENNIFER PACHEO, AND MANUELA SIFUENTES and potential partner organizations. Second, CU Engage conducted a formal self-study using semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of existing university programs and affiliated community organizations to assess perceptions of the impacts of partnerships. Third, through iterative and reflexive processes involving staff members, CU Engage developed new practices and created strategies that could increase the effectiveness of its partnerships. The authors of this article combined and synthesized the findings in consultation with relevant community-campus engagement (CCE) literatures and models, drawing heavily from community first (Andrée, 2016; CFICE, 2018), collective impact (Kania & Kramer, 2011), and community-based participatory research (Wallerstein & Duran, 2017). The purpose of this article is to share tensions faced ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Challenges of Putting Community First: Reflections on a University Center’s Process

Wegemer¹,

Tivaringe²,

Hildreth³

et al. 2020

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This meant campuses were already at VCC's community roundtables. The PR Hub decided to study the co-created CCE models that resulted by funding poverty reduction-focused demonstration projects operating through CCE partnerships (see Schwartz et al 2016). The PR Hub consciously equalized power by making all decisions together, including the co-creation of measurement instruments (e.g.…”

Section: Poverty Reduction (Pr) Hubmentioning

confidence: 99%

CFICE Midterm Review Report

Andrée¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE), a major SSHRC-funded project, aims to strengthen Canadian communities through action research on best practices in community campus engagement. We ask how community campus partnerships can be done to maximize the value created for non-profit, community based organizations in four key areas: Poverty reduction, community food security, community environmental sustainability, and reducing violence against women.

show abstract

“…matic areas addressing pressing social and ecological issues including violence against women, community food security and food sovereignty (Andrée, Kepkiewicz, Levkoe, Brynne, & Kneen, 2016;Kepkiewicz, Levkoe, & Brynne, 2018;Kepkiewicz, Srivastava, Levkoe, Brynne, & Kneen, 2017;Levkoe et al, 2016;Levkoe, Brem-Wilson, & Anderson, 2019;Levkoe, Erlich, & Archibald, 2019;Nelson & Dodd, 2016), poverty reduction (Erickson, Findlay, & Christopherson-Cote, 2018;Pei, Feltham, Ford, & Schwartz, 2015;Schwartz, Weaver, Pei, & Miller, 2016;Zeng & Honig, 2017), and community environmental sustainability (Martin & Ballamingie, 2016;Nasca, Changfoot, & Hill, 2018). In the second phase of CFICE, from 2015 to 2019, campus and community partners worked on cross-sector collaborations to further develop specific practices and approaches, including community-based CCE brokering (Levkoe, Schembri, & Wilson, 2018;Levkoe & Stack-Cutler, 2018;, student pathways for community impact (Przednowek, Goemans, & Wilson, 2018), and community-based organization access to research tools.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Special Section Introduction: Community Impacts of Engaged Research, Teaching, and Practice

Andrée¹,

Changfoot²,

Levkoe³

2020

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the annals of the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning can attest, engaged partnerships have become a powerful tool to enhance teaching and research on university and college campuses around the world. Community-campus engagement (CCE) is both an epistemological and methodological approach. It includes community-based research and participatory action research, community service learning as well as other forms of co-learning and knowledge mobilization. The Carnegie Foundation provides a strong overarching definition of community engagement as "the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity." 1 While the above definition places CCE in the context of higher education, community-based organizations increasingly recognize the value of partnering with faculty, students, and campus staff to increase their capacity, broaden their reach, and accomplish their goals. However, there are inherent challenges involved in bringing typically small, and often underfunded, community-based organizations into partnership with large academic institutions, even when the principle of reciprocity is assumed. Acknowledging both the opportunities and challenges of partnership-based work, researchers and community-based practitioners have called for more community-oriented approaches that put the primary focus on generating meaningful benefits and impacts for community-based partners in CCE (

show abstract

Community-campus partnerships, collective impact, and poverty reduction

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

The Challenges of Putting Community First: Reflections on a University Center’s Process

The Challenges of Putting Community First: Reflections on a University Center’s Process

CFICE Midterm Review Report

Special Section Introduction: Community Impacts of Engaged Research, Teaching, and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About